Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[sparrow]

If America attacks Iran and gets mired in what will prove to be a long drawn out quagmire with no end in sight, the police may very well need belt-fed fully-automatic weapons to mow down protesters across the nation.


When the economy totally implodes they may very well need such weapons to mow down people who are outraged and refusing to obey bankers telling them to move into the street so the homes can be sold to those who still have money.

"oversea investors", fixed it for you

[DavidR310]

Any new thoughts on this?

[Bluesman]

Any new thoughts on this?

No.

In summary,

"Does law Enforcement really need select fire?"

Calgun LEO's say yes.

Everyone else say's no.

[dustoff31]

No.

In summary,

"Does law Enforcement really need select fire?"

Calgun LEO's say yes.

Everyone else say's no.

The difficulty everyone else's position here is that if law enforcement doesn't need select fire, (along with all the other stuff being discussed in other threads), then everyone else certainly doesn't need it.

"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

[Bluesman]

The difficulty everyone else's position here is that if law enforcement doesn't need select fire, (along with all the other stuff being discussed in other threads), then everyone else certainly doesn't need it.

"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

Do government agencies need select fire "personal protection" weapons while trying to outlaw semi-auto "Assault" weapons from civilians?

Posse Comitatus act is often relied upon to prevent the Federal Government from using military forces to interfere in domestic law enforcement, so they militarize the police forces to control the citizens instead.

As citizens of this country, I think certain qualified individuals, who chose the responsability and can afford a Sel. fire should have that right. Leo's alike.

I don't feel a FA weapon serves the charter of serve and protect. However is useful in situations such as the North Hollywood bank heist were the same firepower was used.

I personally think a good sniper rifle works better than throwing lead indiscriminately as FA in combat is usually for suppression only.

Just MHO.

[dustoff31]

Do government agencies need select fire "personal protection" weapons while trying to outlaw semi-auto "Assault" weapons from civilians?

Posse Comitatus act is often relied upon to prevent the Federal Government from using military forces to interfere in domestic law enforcement, so they militarize the police forces to control the citizens instead.

As citizens of this country, I think certain qualified individuals, who chose the responsability and can afford a Sel. fire should have that right. Leo's alike

And in most states they do.

I don't feel a FA weapon serves the charter of serve and protect. However is useful in situations such as the North Hollywood bank heist were the same firepower was used.

I personally think a good sniper rifle works better than throwing lead indiscriminately as FA in combat is usually for suppression only.

Just MHO.

Actually I agree. The argument should not be simply that the police have this or that, but rather the time, place, and manner of employment of that equipment.

[WyattandDoc]

And in most states they do.



Actually I agree. The argument should not be simply that the police have this or that, but rather the time, place, and manner of employment of that equipment.

Absolutely agree!!

[bigger hammer]

No.

In summary,

"Does law Enforcement really need select fire?"

Calgun LEO's say yes.

Everyone else say's no.

Well that's HIGHLY inaccurate. The fact is that many "Calguns LEOs say yes." But not all do.

And the next statement, "Everyone else says no." is just as flawed. Many, perhaps most, of the usual arm chair experts and a few others, say "no," but they HARDLY speak for all of Calguns. CG has almost 190K members, over 26,600 of whom are "active." I'd bet the farm that no one has polled the rest of the members as to their opinion on this. Your statement is just a overbroad generalization, an.

Do government agencies need select fire "personal protection" weapons while trying to outlaw semi-auto "Assault" weapons from civilians?

"[G]overnment agencies" ARE NOT THE ONES who are "trying to outlaw semi− auto "Assault" weapons from civilians." That would be stupid legislators of which there is no shortage in CA.

Posse Comitatus act is often relied upon to prevent the Federal Government from using military forces to interfere in domestic law enforcement, so they militarize the police forces to control the citizens instead.

Oh please. This is just the typical paranoia that we see here occasionally. One would not need select fire weapons if "control[ling] the citizens" was the order of the day.

As citizens of this country, I think certain qualified individuals, who chose the responsability and can afford a Sel. fire should have that right. Leo's alike.

I agree.

I don't feel a FA weapon serves the charter of serve and protect. However is useful in situations such as the North Hollywood bank heist were the same firepower was used.

Since one can't predict when such a situation will arise, it would be advantageous to have such tools on hand BEFORE they do. But in reality, FA weaponry would not have been of much use there. They couldn't have done anything that a semi−auto version of the same rifle could not have done.

I personally think a good sniper rifle works better than throwing lead indiscriminately as FA in combat is usually for suppression only.

It's a very rare situation where FA would be advantageous to LE. But as with a CCW, better to have it and not need it ... I think that there should be a small number of officers who are willing to put in the extra time and training necessary to be proficient with such tools, who should be issued them. The rest should be issued semi−auto versions.

[Bluesman]

And in most states they do.



Actually I agree. The argument should not be simply that the police have this or that, but rather the time, place, and manner of employment of that equipment.

Agreed!

I just disagree with the "just for me and none for thee" attitude some take.

[spyde12]

IMO, I'm all for LE having this as an option. As long as they're available for law abiding citizens.

[DrjonesUSA]

- Average patrol officers should not be allowed to have rifles in their vehicles.

- Not even SWAT should be allowed to have select-fire or anything other than semi-auto rifles.

[pilot613]

i think the same logic can be applied to standard magazines- if the population cant have them i dont think the police should have them. maybe then the law makers will realize how asinine the gun regulation is. as for select fire weapons , they are not needed for 99 percent of the law enforcement job, but you do need it for extreme cases were the police might be out gunned even with this logic i dont think they should have them unless the population can have them. just my 2 cents

[Trakker]

It was a shotgun that finally ended the hollywood shoot out. If I recall. The cops were always semi auto.

[woods]

I would argue that law enforcement should have weapon in "common use" and be required to adhere to the laws civilians do. Why should they have greater than 10 round magazines and selective fire? If they need it, isn't that common use and therefore it should be our right?

If we have a safe gun list shouldn't cops get safe guns too? If their guns are not safe why do we let them patrol with them?

[BKinzey]

It was a shotgun that finally ended the hollywood shoot out. If I recall. The cops were always semi auto.

The first guy shot himself in the head with a pistol as a SWAT sniper shot him simultaneously in the head

The second guy was shot by officers with rifles. He had hijacked a pickup and crashed into another vehicle, upon exiting he began firing at police who were chasing him. Police exited the vehicle and shot him during the ensuing gunfight.

I don't recall a shotgun being used at either scene.

It was over before the ARs they borrowed from B&B Guns could be used.