Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[DrjonesUSA]

OP, until you have been in their shoes, how can you even make a decision? You question is just as bad as why do people need 30 round magazines.

No, because *citizens* have rights - the government does not. The 2A protects a CITIZENS right to bear arms, not the govs.

[mikenewgun87]

OP, until you have been in their shoes, how can you even make a decision? You question is just as bad as why do people need 30 round magazines.

And boom goes the dynamite....

[RMP91]

Slightly unrelated, but I've read that all future M4AX/M16AX rifles built for the US military will be semi-auto only... Is that true?

[rplusplus]

How else are they going to Coroner the Dorner? (sp) was on purpose.

[JDay]

The police should not have anything that the general population is not allowed to have. People forget that the police are regular citizens and should not have any special privileges.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

[desrt2]

Good debate going.

As to why I know or think I know that various LE agencies have select fire weapons, I'm seeing this on some firearms blogs, YouTube videos, firearms manufacturer sites, professional training services and articles about manufacturer's building select fire weapons for law enforcement.

I'm seeing manufacturers offer select fire weapons or state they have sold select fire weapons to LE agencies.

Yeah, I'm taking it in with a grain of salt since I'm reading bout it and do not know any LE officers.

I feel that there are limited scenarios for LE to need/possess/use select fire weapons but there is an appearance, as has been discussed quite a bit, that LE agencies are becoming heavily militarized.

To Chris C.: This is a civilized open-minded debate. I asked because I want to learn, not judge. Like maybe I'm missing something and that light bulb will click on.

Have I walked in their shoes? Much worse. With the exception that I had no restraints.

30 round magazines? This is not an if/then argument and the scope of the argument is about select fire. I'm as pro-2A as they get. My daughters have Magpul stickers everywhere.

Notice that I stated I am not hating on select fire weapons and civilian ownership. That too is outside the scope of the argument.

2 different worlds between combat and LE engagements but it is reasonable to apply practices and constraints between the two.

I didn't have to worry about collateral damage in my area of operations and my mission.

In the civilian world, where your goal is to protect the public and not just get the bad guy, every shot is accounted for and shot placement is more important than just hitting the target.

The North Hollywood incident gave reason for LE to have sufficient tools to stop bad guys with superior fire power. That doesn't mean they need select-fire to meet the threat level.

Absolutely I feel LE needs intermediate and long range firearms.

An AR15 in every patrol vehicle? Reasonable. You can't necessarily wait on a small/elite unit to respond to an immediate threat. And it it's not rare for the bad guys to have body armor. Especially with the presence of the Cartel on the rise.

We're used to seeing shotguns in squad cars. That's been forever. Seeing an AR15 doesn't bug me.

I was stationed in Germany from 1988 - 1990 and I recall regularly seeing Polizei sporting MP5's.

I never thought about why. I didn't care. The Polizei were not to be messed with or disrespected. I think the worst problems they had were with drunk soldiers.

They also were not in the habit of door kicking. The subguns seemed as unalarming as a socket wrench.

Different culture/different country and not the same types of crime.

[omgwtfbbq]

As to the argument that LE should not have anything that a private citizen is concerned, not that I necessarily disagree, but what about the argument that LE should have access to a similar level of weaponry as the criminal element?

In a perfect world, we would all have access to the same weaponry and there wouldn't be restrictions, but unfortunately, that's not our reality. So then we have to ask ourselves whether or not we should compromise our societies chosen and accepted method of mitigating crime because we as citizens can't own the same items? Before the flames: I know, I know, we can all take care of ourselves, the sheeple can be preyed on, darwinism, etc etc, but meanwhile in the real world, we have to deal with the situation that is in front of us, or change it. If we aren't going to change it, then we have to live it.

Believe me, if I could choose, we would all have access to the same goodies, but given the fact that we don't have that power at the moment, what are the other options?

I can only speak for the agencies doing business in my local, but around here SWAT doesn't carry any select fire weapons anymore. At one point they had select fire MP5s, but from what I understand they have been phased out for semiauto UMPs.

[Artema]

I don't even think military with low capacity like 30 rounds should have full auto. 3 round burst gives you similar effect without disarming you via ammo shortages. I'd have no problem with SWAT having 3 round burst as long as SWAT was used appropriately.

[bohoki]

no they don't need it

the army is there to kill people and break stuff

the police have different goals hopefully

[JDay]

If law enforcement was restricted to having access to the same equipment as everyone else (police are regular citizens, they're not supposed to be a special class) firearms laws would not be so restrictive today.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

[KABA556]

You never know when they're going to have to deal with some unarmed college students!

These days police are better armed than the national guard and they have not just select fire rifles, but belt-fed medium machine guns, grenade launchers, drones, the works...

[KABA556]

East Baton Rogue Parish Sheriff's Department had an "assault boat" constructed and armed up for them by Red Jacket Firearms [check the video clip from the show, it has to be out there somewhere].

The river patrol boat is armed with TWO M-240 belt-fed medium machine guns and a smoke grenade launcher. It may also have an HE 40mm grenade launcher.


They say the boat is for the "war on drugs" which should just instantly put your concerns to rest... We all know that Baton Rouge is on the front-line in the war with the Mexican cartels, it is ten times worse than the Rio Grande area...

[KABA556]

South Carolina PD acquires an M113 armored personnel carrier armed with an M2 Browning .50 caliber belt-fed machine gun.

http://boingboing.net/2008/09/02/south-carolina-sheri.html

The Richland County, South Carolina Sheriff's Department (that's them above) just obtained an armored personnel carrier, complete with a belt-fed, .50-cal turreted machine gun. Sheriff Leon Lott has charmingly named the vehicle "The Peacemaker," and insists that using a caliber of ammunition that even the U.S. military is reluctant to use against human targets (it's generally reserved for use against armored vehicles) will "save lives."

[desrt2]

That sounds like a great window decal/t-shirt/email signature "the army is there to kill people and break stuff."
When people ask why I have a hearing aid I tell them from blowing ***t up.
That was the 5% of war that is fun. No one ever sees the 95%. That part is either boring or traumatic.

no they don't need it

the army is there to kill people and break stuff

the police have different goals hopefully

[KABA556]

OP, until you have been in their shoes, how can you even make a decision? You question is just as bad as why do people need 30 round magazines.

No it really isn't as bad because we are expected to foot the bill for all of the toys and martial law gear that they want to stockpile.


If a local PD believes they need two M113 APCs, 50 M-16s, and a trailer filled with riot gear, we have a right to know why they believe they need said items.



Grand Forks North Dakota is getting ready for something fierce-

http://cironline.org/reports/local-police-stockpile-high-tech-combat-ready-gear-2913