Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[SVT-40]

Well you know we've had zero suicide truck bombings in this nation's entire history...

Even still, I would rather we have to endure one suicide truck bombing every 10-20 years, with maybe a few dozen casualties, than that we become a police state with tanks all over, internal checkpoints, constant patrols with internal security forces, drones in the skies taking people out if their license plate light burns out.


Do you think we need to mandate that all sharp corners be rounded off and that toddlers have to be made to wear helmets before they can play outside?


You cannot protect against everything, it is infinitely more important that we preserve a Constitutional Republic than that we protect every single life in the nation from any possibility of harm, and in the process morph into a police state that our Founders would despise.

Please just stop...

Your posts have little relevance to this topic...

I know your a young college student in Ohio who thinks he knows everything...

However you don't... In fact you really know very little...

Your big on opinions and small on facts

Stick to getting your degree in engineering.... It will serve you better than wasting your time here.....

[Patrick Aherne]

Well you know we've had zero suicide truck bombings in this nation's entire history...

Even still, I would rather we have to endure one suicide truck bombing every 10-20 years, with maybe a few dozen casualties, than that we become a police state with tanks all over, internal checkpoints, constant patrols with internal security forces, drones in the skies taking people out if their license plate light burns out.


Do you think we need to mandate that all sharp corners be rounded off and that toddlers have to be made to wear helmets before they can play outside?


You cannot protect against everything, it is infinitely more important that we preserve a Constitutional Republic than that we protect every single life in the nation from any possibility of harm, and in the process morph into a police state that our Founders would despise.

We've already lost, bro. We ceased the whole effective Republic thing when the majority found out they could vote funds to themselves from the public treasury and that these votes can be sold to continue receiving funds from the public treasury.

Just be honest: you would rather I, or someone dressed like me die than have a tool which might work in a very limited role for a very specific purpose. However, you don't have the courage to do the job yourself. I can accept that.

[SactoDoug]

I guess you did not really read my post.....A rifle does not determine "accuracy" that is determined by the shooter.....

I guess you didn't read my post. I stated that unequivocally, FA will never be as accurate as semi-auto. Your choice to fire it as semi-auto is moot to the subject of the thread.

What is it with the constant bait and switch from you LEO's? You keep trying to equate firing semi-auto with full auto.

Your comments are meaningless to the issue... No FA weapons were used.

However it is instructive as to your bias as you try to include issues which are not related.....

Again not germane to the subject of this thread... Additionally when you use the term "everyone" your argument is lost.....

I was involved in shootings as a LEO one was five rounds with me hitting the suspect on the fifth round....The second was three rounds with all hitting the target... The third was one round.....

But I guess your a "expert" in LEO involved shootings.....

There is no "regular" adversary.... Some are just more determined than others....So each would be different, and require a different level of force based on the specifics of that situation.

Actually Bigger hammer wrote in a deadly force encounter LEO's should fire what ever number of rounds it takes to stop the threat.....

I don't recall him using your hysterical term "hail of bullets".....

I must be hitting a few nerves. I have not seen such a long string of ad hominem attacks in a long time.

I asked you to define what is a "determined adversary" and you define all of them as determined. Apparently the term is meaningless.

bigger hammer stated: "Put as much lead [into the threat] as possible to [b][stop the threat]". I guess you are right. Putting as much lead as possible into a threat is actually more than a "hail of bullets", especially if using FA weapons.

[TRICKSTER]

Okay guys, time to quit feeding the s.
They will never see the real world, they will see only what their bias lets them see.

[pummel]

I guess you didn't read my post. I stated that unequivocally, FA will never be as accurate as semi-auto. Your choice to fire it as semi-auto is moot to the subject of the thread.

What is it with the constant bait and switch from you LEO's? You keep trying to equate firing semi-auto with full auto.



I must be hitting a few nerves. I have not seen such a long string of ad hominem attacks in a long time.

I asked you to define what is a "determined adversary" and you define all of them as determined. Apparently the term is meaningless.

bigger hammer stated: "Put as much lead [into the threat] as possible to [b][stop the threat]". I guess you are right. Putting as much lead as possible into a threat is actually more than a "hail of bullets", especially if using FA weapons.

Real cute. What does that shooting have to do with police having full auto capable weapons? A has already been said here, these types of weapons are used in very rare/ specialized circumstances/ units.
I'm guessing that you've never fired full auto, or if you did, maybe it was in Vegas at one of those rental ranges, because you seem to have no idea how it is properly used. Even in the army, the SAW's and 240's were never fired balls out (so to speak) unless it was absolutely necessary to keep some heads down. Otherwise it was used in short, well placed, bursts. (And no, I'm not saying cops need crew served weapons. But FA capable is good to go.)
Could that be useful in a stateside setting for LEO's? I believe it can. I do know of one incident where an officer was shot by a suspect, who was high on meth. Even after taking a few rounds himself, the suspect continued to fire. It took a few officers with FA sub guns to stop him. Could that have been accomplished by a semi auto? Probably, but who knows if it would've cost more officer's lives?
I'd call that a determined enemy, what about you? Or is your only enemy that zombie target at the range?
If you agree with officers not having full auto, then surely you agree with the 10 round mag limit. I mean, who could possibly need that much firepower to stop any conceivable threat?!
And if you think FA is flat out more inaccurate, you've never seen a master like Phil Singleton handle an MP5!!
But I'll have to concur with my betters here, who have been trying to have a reasonable discussion with you, your mind is already made up.
ETA I'm surprised you haven't found a way to bring up the Dorner incident, just saying.

[bigger hammer]

Well you know we've had zero suicide truck bombings in this nation's entire history...

Before 9-11-2001 we didn't have anyone flying commercial airliners into buildings. Before 11-5-2009 we didn't have a soldier shooting up a military base. Before 4-15, 2013 we didn't have anyone blowing up the finish line at a marathon. So there's really no reason to tighten up security at those places either, right?

Even still, I would rather we have to endure one suicide truck bombing every 10-20 years, with maybe a few dozen casualties

Can we get your work address so that we can make sure that's where he goes? You're willing to sacrifice "a few dozen" random folks, maybe if it hit a little closer to home, you'd wake up to the reality?

than that we become a police state with tanks all over, internal checkpoints, constant patrols with internal security forces, drones in the skies taking people out if their license plate light burns out.

I'll suggest that there's a middle ground. And BTW it was only once or twice a year that I performed a roadside execution of someone whose license plate was burnt out. It's hardly worth mentioning.

Do you think we need to mandate that all sharp corners be rounded off and that toddlers have to be made to wear helmets before they can play outside?

No, but when toddlers lived here but I put baby locks on the under−sink cabinet where the caustic chemicals were stored. And when they started riding bicycles, they wore helmets. Nowadays they wear seat belts in the car, and use the safeties on their handguns. Some things can be done by the individual. Putting up vehicle barricades at the entrances to obvious targets is the province of the government.

You cannot protect against everything, it is infinitely more important that we preserve a Constitutional Republic than that we protect every single life in the nation from any possibility of harm, and in the process morph into a police state that our Founders would despise.

Again, there's probably a reasonable middle ground. But for those who think the sky is falling, perhaps not.

[bigger hammer]

I guess you didn't read my post. I stated that unequivocally, FA will never be as accurate as semi-auto.

Yes we know what you've "stated." Perhaps if you had some experience along these lines, you'd understand that what you're saying is irrelevant to the discussion.

Your choice to fire it as semi-auto is moot to the subject of the thread.

Before the North Hollywood incident few urban PD's equipped their patrol officers with rifles of any kind. Afterwards, many departments equipped their patrol officers with select fire rifles capable of firing either on full or on semi−auto, giving the officer the option to use whichever was appropriate for the situation at hand. If the target is across the room then 'full' will stop the threat he's presenting faster than 'semi' due to the delivery of more energy from more rounds, in a shorter period of time. Accuracy at those distances will be more than adequate. If he's across a field, 100 yards away, and is firing at officers who are arriving and have not yet set up, 'full' will be helpful to suppress his ability to shoot at them. Once they're set up and his location is known, 'semi' will be useful to deliver accurate fire and conserve ammunition. This ability to switch from 'full' to 'semi' and back as needed, makes it obvious that this point is NOT "moot" as you claim.

What is it with the constant bait and switch from you LEO's? You keep trying to equate firing semi-auto with full auto.

No "bait and switch" here. Just a realization that both 'full' and 'semi' have applications to LE.

I must be hitting a few nerves. I have not seen such a long string of ad hominem attacks in a long time.

When you start such behavior against people who have spent their careers NOT backing down from personal attacks, both physical and verbal, it would be stupid of you not to expect to get it back.

I asked you to define what is a "determined adversary" and you define all of them as determined. Apparently the term is meaningless.

Everyone who decides to assault a LEO with a weapon has some degree of "determination." How much can best be determined by what they do when that attack is met with force. Most will surrender at the sight of a handgun being pointed at them, without it even being fired. Some will only stop if they're shot. Some will stop if they're shot once. Some will need to be shot many times before they decide to cease their attack. Some will continue their attack until they are shot so many times that they pass out from loss of blood. Some will have the choice taken away from them due to a brain/CNS hit. There's no way of knowing into which category an "adversary" will fit until the fight starts. But these things are obvious to those with real world experience. To those whose "experience" consists of the movies, TV and video games, combined with a lack of common sense, not so much.

bigger hammer stated: "Put as much lead [into the threat] as possible to [b][stop the threat]". I guess you are right. Putting as much lead as possible into a threat is actually more than a "hail of bullets", especially if using FA weapons.

You've been told and have acknowledged that no automatic weapon were used in that incident, yet you keep making the reference. Talk about "moot" and "bait and switch!" ROFL.

[SactoDoug]

Full auto is "accurate". LOL

[KABA556]

We've already lost, bro. We ceased the whole effective Republic thing when the majority found out they could vote funds to themselves from the public treasury and that these votes can be sold to continue receiving funds from the public treasury.

Just be honest: you would rather I, or someone dressed like me die than have a tool which might work in a very limited role for a very specific purpose. However, you don't have the courage to do the job yourself. I can accept that.

I don't value the job so I'm not going to pay for it and I don't care if you do it or if nobody does it.


I think that's the problem, there are people who simply do not value what you do and you cannot accept that there are people who are not tripping over themselves to stage a parade in your honor and vote you a pay raise.


Certain occupations add value to society, factory workers, farmers, engineers, technicians, bricklayers, ranchers, people who contribute products that impact GDP.


Military, Police, and Security, have no way to quantify their benefit to society. If a factory worker assembles 200 gas generators each year, that can be quantified.

Police can say that their presence stops Ted Bundy and Osama Bin Laden copycats from going wild in town, but the presence of an armed citizenry might be what is achieving that. You cannot disprove a negative.

If police insist that their presence in a community prevents serial killers and rapists from roaming the streets, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove that.

At the end of the day, money spent on policing is basically money that is lost, it does not produce further wealth, it is not capital that generates a constant return, it is money that is simply lost.


So now you resort to ad hominems and you call me a coward when you don't know squat about me.

[KABA556]

Before 9-11-2001 we didn't have anyone flying commercial airliners into buildings. Before 11-5-2009 we didn't have a soldier shooting up a military base. Before 4-15, 2013 we didn't have anyone blowing up the finish line at a marathon. So there's really no reason to tighten up security at those places either, right?

Back in the 1960s and 1970s you could take a pistol on an airplane at the discretion of each individual airline...


Do you believe TSA has done anything to make air travel safer?



Anybody could buy explosives in the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, but aside from gangsters/mobsters bombing each other, and anarchists attacking big corporate leaders [rare], there were no attacks on citizens running marathons.


Most terrorist attacks are perpetrated by the government against the citizens to justify the expansion of the police state and the erosion of citizens rights.

[KABA556]

Please just stop...

Your posts have little relevance to this topic...

I know your a young college student in Ohio who thinks he knows everything...

However you don't... In fact you really know very little...

Your big on opinions and small on facts

Stick to getting your degree in engineering.... It will serve you better than wasting your time here.....

I know YOU'RE an old man out West who thinks he has been everywhere and done everything...

See, I can do that too, don't you see! You came down on me for forgetting a word in one sentence about a week ago so I can harp on you for writing YOUR when the proper word is YOU'RE or YOU ARE.



You're big on logical fallacies, [especially the ad hominem, appeal to authority, and appeal to numbers/band-wagon] and you're absolutely void of facts.


You've also managed to shoot at least three individuals on the job, which seems odd when most police somehow make it through their career without shooting anybody. By your own admission you've put holes in at least three individuals, which suggests to me that you're just the sort of individual we don't want running around with a fully automatic weapon. Maybe it isn't you, maybe you were just working in a bad area, I can't say for sure, but it seems odd to be involved in so many shootings.

[SactoDoug]

When you start such behavior against people who have spent their careers NOT backing down from personal attacks, both physical and verbal, it would be stupid of you not to expect to get it back.

I started the personal attacks. LOL

You don't know the difference between attacking the person and attacking what they argue. The following attacks the stupid things you have posted, not you personally.

[KABA556]

I started the personal attacks. LOL

You don't know the difference between attacking the person and attacking what they argue. The following attacks the stupid things you have posted, not you personally.

Just be glad you are separated by a computer monitor... Youtube is overflowing with videos where some bystander verbally challenges a police officer who is roughing up a suspect and then the officer basically drops the suspect and goes wild on the bystander. They say they won't step back when they are verbally challenged or disrespected. When I was young and I worked retail I had to deal with very difficult customers, some who were so upset by the product that they threatened to harm me, harm my co-workers, damage store property, etc. I was not empowered to leap across the counter and begin assaulting them, even if they had just threatened great bodily harm, so I had to calm them down and talk them down. But when you have the force of the law behind you, sometimes it makes people people feel empowered to the point where they assault people for merely "showing disrespect" and we have a lot of that in the USA today... Just be glad you're separated from those people by the computer.


There's one in Denver where a man took pictures at a traffic stop and began filming the incident, he called out to the driver, "why did they stop you?" and the driver shouted "they said I ran that stop sign" and the man then called back to him, "I saw the whole thing, you didn't run the stop sign, I'll testify for you, get me your phone number..."

The cop immediately ran over to the man, grabbed his phone, smashed it on the ground, slammed the man onto the concrete, and kicked him repeatedly in the chest and stomach.

I guess some people don't like being filmed and believe that such a thing is an appropriate reaction/response.



Question their authority, don't give them the respect they believe they are automatically entitled by virtue of their position, and you're going to get hurt, that's what it boils down to.

[lavey29]

I don't value the job so I'm not going to pay for it and I don't care if you do it or if nobody does it.


I think that's the problem, there are people who simply do not value what you do and you cannot accept that there are people who are not tripping over themselves to stage a parade in your honor and vote you a pay raise.


Certain occupations add value to society, factory workers, farmers, engineers, technicians, bricklayers, ranchers, people who contribute products that impact GDP.


Military, Police, and Security, have no way to quantify their benefit to society. If a factory worker assembles 200 gas generators each year, that can be quantified.

Police can say that their presence stops Ted Bundy and Osama Bin Laden copycats from going wild in town, but the presence of an armed citizenry might be what is achieving that. You cannot disprove a negative.

If police insist that their presence in a community prevents serial killers and rapists from roaming the streets, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove that.

At the end of the day, money spent on policing is basically money that is lost, it does not produce further wealth, it is not capital that generates a constant return, it is money that is simply lost.


So now you resort to ad hominems and you call me a coward when you don't know squat about me.

What a ridiculously ignorant statement. Do you know how much "theft and fraud" in all forms across a broad spectrum affects the price you pay for things on a daily basis? Do you realize how your small business (producing those 200 generators) livelyhood is affected if you have it in a high crime area that is not policed properly? Do you realize how many traffic accidents are prevented through traffic enforcement which again affects the price you pay for insurance? How about auto theft and the price of cars and auto insurance? I could go on and on and on about how crime and the proper policing of such directly impacts the average person even though they were never directly involved or the victim of the crime(s) being perpetrated. There is a direct connection and correlation that has an impact on GDP also and if you can not see it then you need to pull your head out of the sand and look around.

[SactoDoug]

I have seen both good and bad LEO's over the years. The ones that have contempt for the public are the ones that tend to be the bad apples. Those kinds of officers are the ones that demand respect and often abuse their authority.

I have also met and dealt with a few good officers too. They do their job, serve the community and have a good attitude about it.

One thing that is troublesome is the "circle the wagons" mentality that they have. The good cops will protect the bad ones. I always applaud any officer that reports poor behavior from other officers. It shows there is hope to get rid of the bad apples.

On this particular subject, I starting on a civil liberties stand that LEO's should have the same access to weapons as the average citizen. After reading the responses from various LEO's in this thread, including one self professed instructor, I am dead set against it. If the posters in this thread are any indication, they are reckless and dangerous. I question whether they should be allowed to have any weapons at all.

I was taught that self defense ends when the threat ends Fire three rounds at a time and reassess whether the threat still exists after each group of three. Even if all three rounds miss, the "threat" might stop or flee when met with gunfire. These officers are purposefully trained to fire as many rounds as quickly as they can into the "threat". My training was to preserve life if at all possible. Their training is reckless.

It reminds me of this video where about 2/3's of the rounds fired were made after the "threat" was on the ground writhing in pain. Yes, the initial rounds were justified, but the majority of the round IMO were not. The officer either failed to reassess the threat, or didn't care. He kept shooting, even slowed his shots towards the end to almost ensure that they were lethal.



They need full auto.