Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[trob]

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

So, when was the last time you wore a BP vest to work, every day? Are you the one who approaches these types of situations when needed? They get what they need to get the job done. Not all of them get FA weapons, btw.

[Artema]

So, when was the last time you wore a BP vest to work, every day? Are you the one who approaches these types of situations when needed? They get what they need to get the job done. Not all of them get FA weapons, btw.

And this is called escalation of violence. Drug use should be treated as a public health issue. If the government gets big guns, the dealers get big guns. Drugs will happen no matter what. Making it bloody seems to be our objective.

[SanPedroShooter]

Lots of interesting posts and opinions. So I'll add my random responses and opinions.

ARs in patrol cars. Someone was against that but living in a rural area like I do They are required as the distances and situations out here exceed shotgun range.

Should patrol officers have FA. I think not. A FA weapon is a suppression weapon and the collateral damage potential is massive. SWAT teams probably have a valid use for them.

And finally... I'd be a whole lot happier if the police weren't heading (running actually) in the military dress, tactics and weapons direction.

That's how I feel about it. I think its great police have AR's in the patrol cars, I have several in my house.

They work here, I live here, so it makes sense.

I think a good case can be made for select fire for some units in some situations.

[IrishJoe3]

And this is called escalation of violence. Drug use should be treated as a public health issue. If the government gets big guns, the dealers get big guns. Drugs will happen no matter what. Making it bloody seems to be our objective.

Almost a chicken V. Egg argument there. Did civil law enforcement get big guns, resulting in the criminals to respond in kind? Or did criminals get big guns, and law enforcement in turn get big guns?

You are correct when you say that drug use should be a public health issue. In fact, it is a public health issue. I caution you to not confuse drug use with the drug trade.

Drug use is the addict in the alley with a dimebag.

The drug trade is the network that extends from the dealer to the production of the product. The drug trade is EXTREMELY violent and extremely competitive. Our (United States) drug trade starts for the most part south of our border. Look at the violence in Mexico via the cartels. Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world. All the other centeral american countries are no exception. This is where our drugs come from or are often trafficked through. These drug cartels and organizations have armored vehicles, explosives, hand grenades, RPGs, machine guns of every sort. These cartels/organizations are largely a product of our appetite for drugs. In fact, the Los Zetas, (the group that stops busses and decapitates everyone on board) have partnered with Hezbollah (yes, the middle eastern terrorist group) to traffic Hezbollah narcotics through mexico into the United States.

Our law enforcement is already well established and cooperates much better than Mexican civil authority. As a result the cartel presence within the US is MUCH more subdued than in Mexico. Make no mistake though, they are here. In fact, there are huge cartel grows right now within 50 miles of where I am right now.

So yes, drug use itself is a public health issue. But that drug use fuels a HUGE international drug trade that is incredibly bloody.

[spetsnaz]

Swat only and even then I don't understand why Leo need these rifles anyway

[SanPedroShooter]

Almost a chicken V. Egg argument there. Did civil law enforcement get big guns, resulting in the criminals to respond in kind? Or did criminals get big guns, and law enforcement in turn get big guns?

You are correct when you say that drug use should be a public health issue. In fact, it is a public health issue. I caution you to not confuse drug use with the drug trade.

Drug use is the addict in the alley with a dimebag.

The drug trade is the network that extends from the dealer to the production of the product. The drug trade is EXTREMELY violent and extremely competitive. Our (United States) drug trade starts for the most part south of our border. Look at the violence in Mexico via the cartels. Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world. All the other centeral american countries are no exception. This is where our drugs come from or are often trafficked through. These drug cartels and organizations have armored vehicles, explosives, hand grenades, RPGs, machine guns of every sort. These cartels/organizations are largely a product of our appetite for drugs. In fact, the Los Zetas, (the group that stops busses and decapitates everyone on board) have partnered with Hezbollah (yes, the middle eastern terrorist group) to traffic Hezbollah narcotics through mexico into the United States.

Our law enforcement is already well established and cooperates much better than Mexican civil authority. As a result the cartel presence within the US is MUCH more subdued than in Mexico. Make no mistake though, they are here. In fact, there are huge cartel grows right now within 50 miles of where I am right now.

So yes, drug use itself is a public health issue. But that drug use fuels a HUGE international drug trade that is incredibly bloody.

That's a great point. If we could divorce the two issues, I think we could free up a lot of space in prisons and jails, and we could let LE focus on kicking asses where they need to be kicked.

[IrishJoe3]

Lots of interesting posts and opinions. So I'll add my random responses and opinions.

ARs in patrol cars. Someone was against that but living in a rural area like I do They are required as the distances and situations out here exceed shotgun range.

Should patrol officers have FA. I think not. A FA weapon is a suppression weapon and the collateral damage potential is massive. SWAT teams probably have a valid use for them.

And finally... I'd be a whole lot happier if the police weren't heading (running actually) in the military dress, tactics and weapons direction.

Half right. I do not want a full auto for patrol. It would be completely pointless; I have no need for it. Just like on patrol I have no need for SAPI plates, armored vehicles and helmets.

Yes, crew served full autos are area suppression weapons (M2, M249 SAW, M240B etc). Using those autos and cartridges in that that role in an urban setting is a HUGELY bad idea that will result in catastrophic overpenetration and unnecessary collateral damage.

However, full autos like an MP5 (submachine guns) etc are not for suppression, and are an excellent choice for law enforcement. The pistol caliber won't go through half a block and is easy to keep on target on full auto, small weapon easy to manage in confined spaces, etc. So yes, wholly appropriate for law enforcement in specific roles.

Its kinda like, you hunt elk with the 30-06. You pop coyotes with the AR15. You hunt duck with the 12 GA mossberg. You shoot clays with the side-by-side.

[IrishJoe3]

That's a great point. If we could divorce the two issues, I think we could free up a lot of space in prisons and jails, and we could let LE focus on kicking asses where they need to be kicked.

Yessir! Though I think law enforcement and the courts understands that though. Arrests for simply possession of narcotics is pretty universally considered 'small fish'. Likewise, the penalties for possession are insignificant. Contrary to popular belief, in todays post AB109 era, you won't get prison time, and any country time will be very brief, if any at all.

Ask any cop, they would love to make a huge drug bust, ie make a break into that trafficking/drug trade before it gets to the streets. Screwing with the cartels money maker is great fun! Arresting some poor sick junkie...not so much.

[Artema]

Almost a chicken V. Egg argument there. Did civil law enforcement get big guns, resulting in the criminals to respond in kind? Or did criminals get big guns, and law enforcement in turn get big guns?

You are correct when you say that drug use should be a public health issue. In fact, it is a public health issue. I caution you to not confuse drug use with the drug trade.

Drug use is the addict in the alley with a dimebag.

The drug trade is the network that extends from the dealer to the production of the product. The drug trade is EXTREMELY violent and extremely competitive. Our (United States) drug trade starts for the most part south of our border. Look at the violence in Mexico via the cartels. Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world. All the other centeral american countries are no exception. This is where our drugs come from or are often trafficked through. These drug cartels and organizations have armored vehicles, explosives, hand grenades, RPGs, machine guns of every sort. These cartels/organizations are largely a product of our appetite for drugs. In fact, the Los Zetas, (the group that stops busses and decapitates everyone on board) have partnered with Hezbollah (yes, the middle eastern terrorist group) to traffic Hezbollah narcotics through mexico into the United States.

Our law enforcement is already well established and cooperates much better than Mexican civil authority. As a result the cartel presence within the US is MUCH more subdued than in Mexico. Make no mistake though, they are here. In fact, there are huge cartel grows right now within 50 miles of where I am right now.

So yes, drug use itself is a public health issue. But that drug use fuels a HUGE international drug trade that is incredibly bloody.

I completely understand what you are saying, and it is also what I was saying. However, look at the trade of alcohol, which is far worse for you than marijuana. Back during prohibition it was violently defended. Why is Coors and Patron not at war with the United States government now?

[IrishJoe3]

I completely understand what you are saying, and it is also what I was saying. However, look at the trade of alcohol, which is far worse for you than marijuana. Back during prohibition it was violently defended. Why is Coors and Patron not at war with the United States government now?

I totally get what you're saying. First though look beyond marijuana, marijuana is a very small and part of a very large problem. Everyone only talks about MJ though because its everywhere.

Also, this is 2013, not 1930. We are globalized on a scale that was unimaginable back then. The drug trade isn't hooch cooked up in a barn and run into the next county by a Model T. its international. That junkie in front of your house is smoking Afghanistani heroin, columbian cocaine, mexican marijuana, and on an on. To get to that junkie, those drugs go through a lot of hands.

We also cannot manufacture many narcotics here, so regardless of legality, there will ALWAYS be a drug trade. As long as there is a drug trade (especially one that originates in central america) the cartels will always be involved in it. And they will (and have the means) to fight to retain the power that they have now.

And lets say that Baur starts to import/produce completely legal heroin/cocaine/etc domestically. You can believe that that the cartels will start bringing those heavy weapons into the US and will use them to target their competition (new) just like they are doing right now to their competition in Mexico. These people aren't going to throw up their hands, give up power and say "oh well, guess I'll sell tacos in Tijuana".

Its incredibly naive and unrealistic to think that today, 2013, it'll all just go away if its legalized. I see this because I have a constant inside view of trafficking and how this works on the street.

[Artema]

I totally get what you're saying. First though look beyond marijuana, marijuana is a very small and part of a very large problem. Everyone only talks about MJ though because its everywhere.

Also, this is 2013, not 1930. We are globalized on a scale that was unimaginable back then. The drug trade isn't hooch cooked up in a barn and run into the next county by a Model T. its international. That junkie in front of your house is smoking Afghanistani heroin, columbian cocaine, mexican marijuana, and on an on. To get to that junkie, those drugs go through a lot of hands.

We also cannot manufacture many narcotics here, so regardless of legality, there will ALWAYS be a drug trade. As long as there is a drug trade (especially one that originates in central america) the cartels will always be involved in it. And they will (and have the means) to fight to retain the power that they have now.

And lets say that Baur starts to import/produce completely legal heroin/cocaine/etc domestically. You can believe that that the cartels will start bringing those heavy weapons into the US and will use them to target their competition (new) just like they are doing right now to their competition in Mexico. These people aren't going to throw up their hands, give up power and say "oh well, guess I'll sell tacos in Tijuana".

Its incredibly naive and unrealistic to think that today, 2013, it'll all just go away if its legalized. I see this because I have a constant inside view of trafficking and how this works on the street.

It may be naive from the perspective of someone who is in the mix, but there are many countries around the world which have decriminalized drugs, and put the money into rehabilitation. Drug use has plummeted and deaths related to trade have all but disappeared. Naive, is the a word for someone who doesn't know about this stuff.

[IrishJoe3]

It may be naive from the perspective of someone who is in the mix, but there are many countries around the world which have decriminalized drugs, and put the money into rehabilitation. Drug use has plummeted and deaths related to trade have all but disappeared. Naive, is the a word for someone who doesn't know about this stuff.

LOL, how true are those words

[Artema]

LOL, how true are those words

Exceedingly. Someone who has spent a significant portion of their lives violently battling something will not be able to accept, in the face of proof, that the thousands of deaths were a result of escalation of violence, rather than a necessity of the situation.

[bodger]

Do the police need NFA forms on all their Title II firearms?

I thought they did.

I live in LA, and I have never seen a rifle in a patrol car. One time I saw an AR15, I know cause I looked through the window at it.

I remember reading that the pussies at city hall or somewhere were offended by the sight of rifles in patrol cars. Maybe they are in the trunk.

I also live across from a military installation, and DOD police have Colt M16A2's exactly like the one I used in the military.

Either way, the PD doesn't seem to need any more help spraying lead at people/cars/objects/dogs or whatever.

Remember those two Asian mail carrier ladies? That was down the street from here.
Look at the damage those knuckleheads did with semi auto...

Yeah, if those cops had been using full auto that night, there would have been two dead Asian ladies and the city would have had one helluva lot bigger settlement to pay out.

(I think they were delivering newspapers though, not mail if I recall.)

[IrishJoe3]

Exceedingly. Someone who has spent a significant portion of their lives violently battling something will not be able to accept, in the face of proof, that the thousands of deaths were a result of escalation of violence, rather than a necessity of the situation.

And your opinion is based on.....what actual experience? How much actual research have you done? And what proof is staring me in the face as you claim? Unfortunately, this time my signature does apply to you.