Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[SactoDoug]

SactoDoug please tell us how being certified to teach the MP-5 and patrol carbine makes me an expert on, as you wrote, "what percentage of these "shooting situations" involve the officer using their AR vs their sidearm?" Of course this is a rhetorical question. It's apparent that you don't even remember the statements you made yesterday!

ad hominem much? When you can't win an argument, attack the person.

You cited your own credentials to give yourself authority on the subject. But I accept your admission of lack of authority on the subject.

If only the same could be said for you.

Another personal attack.

Yes, I know. Thirty years in LE, has taught me pretty well what police officers do. Do you have any personal experience in this area? If so, please detail it for us. I'd love to hear how you know what you state next.

Another form of personal attack. I never stated I was an expert nor trainer in the matter.

In select fire they allow an officer to deliver very quick follow-up rounds, faster than a hammer from a handgun and with much greater accuracy.

This is so absurd it does not deserve a response.

If they had been armed with select fire rifles, they would have been more accurate. They needn't have had the selector switch set on 'full,' they could just have easily set it on 'semi.' Or, if one of them was confident in his ability to use the 'full' setting he, as I said, might have been able to end the situation before the barricade took place. You may remember that I've written this, "I've said a couple of times that it's not necessary to use the "full" switch in many situations."

If they had bolt action rifles, they would have been more accurate too. They fired what they actually had on hand which might have been their rifles.

What is amazing is that you are sticking to your dumb statement that FA is more accurate. If you mean a rifle is more accurate than a pistol, that is obvious to anyone that has ever fired both. That is also irrelevant to the discussion.

FA is not more accurate than semi-auto and never will be.

[SactoDoug]

When it a threat to life comes present, the mission of an LEO is the same, except that death is not the desired result, stopping the threat is. The best way to do that is to "Put as much lead [into the threat] as possible to [stop the threat]."



The fact is that suspects make the decision as to what they do. When they do something that puts the life of an LEO or another person, at risk, the LEO AND the other person are permitted to use force to stop that threat. One of the most effective ways to do that is to shoot the suspect as many times as necessary, as quickly as possible, to stop the threat as soon as possible. This has absolutely nothing to do with "final arbiters of life and death." It's about stopping the threat as quickly as possible.



What nonsense. If the officer WAS as you so absurdly state, "judge jury and executioner." then he'd just pull his gun and execute anyone he thought "needed killing."[/i] The fact is that death is an unwanted outcome of a police shooting. We're only interested in stopping the threat as quickly as possible. But when the suspect decides to use deadly force, "apprehension" becomes secondary and saving lives becomes primary. As it's always been, it's the suspect who makes the decision as to what happens to him. Surrender quietly and voices will not even be raised. Create a situation where LEO's lives and those of others are in danger, and expect to be stopped as quickly as possible with whatever tools are the most efficient at that moment. Select fire rifles are much better at this than handguns. They provide more accuracy and quickly deliver more energy to the suspect at longer ranges, than do handguns.



Just as an evil black rifle in the hands of a private citizen does to a California legislator! Hoplophobia makes no sense on any level. Yet that's the agenda that you're pushing.



There really isn't that much controversy, just because the suspect is unarmed, except among the ignorant and the uninformed. If the officer reasonably believed that his life, or that of another person, was in danger he's permitted to use deadly force to stop the threat. Some people are simply unable or unwilling to accept that fact.



I don't accept the opinion that there is "so much concern" over this. But since the statement is intentionally vague, it really doesn't mean much.



Jeez, what a load. This has NOTHING to do with the topic under discussion. When the time comes to fire a weapon at a suspect, it's because what he's doing is dangerous to the life of the LEO or another person. In that case, stopping what the suspect is doing as quickly as possible minimizes the threat. Having a select fire weapon gives both the accuracy necessary and allows for enough rounds to be fired in a short period of time, to do that.

This is a good post. I am going to save it to show to others. It clearly states the mindset of LE.

A LEO does not desire to kill a threat, they just fill them with more than enough lead to stop them. A distinction without a difference.

I was taught to fire three round groups for self defense. Fire three rounds, reassess the situation. The reason: because self defense was about stopping the threat, not killing them. That clearly is not the philosophy that bigger hammer teaches.

A LEO does has no choice in the matter to use lethal force. The decision is ALL made by the suspect. The LEO might as well be an automaton.

So there is a threshold somewhere in every LEO's mind of perceived threats. If they perceive a threat, real or otherwise, then shoot to kill. bigger hammer wants them to be even better at killing suspects by using FA weapons.

Clarity on this subject is what is needed. You sir, just made it very clear where LE stands.

[lavey29]

Interesting topic. I have not read the whole thread just skimmed it but I think we need look no further then what happened in North Hollywood some years back and LE being outgunned by the bad guys who were armed with FA rifles and ballistic gear. That was kind of a turning point in LE training and tactics as far as deployment of specific weapons. You started to see a transition to more .45 duty weapons. Patrol cars now had MP5's and M4's in them rather then just having those weapons in the armory. Obviously SWAT already had these tools (and other cool stuff) but they are called out on an as needed basis depending on the situation. The normal patrol cop typically had his side arm and a shotgun. Now things have changed particularly as crime has become more violent over the years. I think it is good that patrol cars have access to other weapon options as needed. To my knowledge the MP5's will be select fire but the M4's seem to be mainly semi auto only. Some may have 3 shot burst capability.

I think it all comes down to training and tactics and it does not matter if the tool you use has FA capability or not as long as you are competent and trained in the use of the weapon. Deploying it as needed depending on the circumstances at the time.

[bigger hammer]

ad hominem much? When you can't win an argument, attack the person.

Don't like it? Don't start it.

You cited your own credentials to give yourself authority on the subject. But I accept your admission of lack of authority on the subject.

A complete misstatement of the facts. ANOTHER of your logical fallacies. I cited my own credentials to establish my credibility on the subject of the use of select fire weapons and then stated that "I know the problem they bring" and that "Not ever officer can handle them." You attempted, and that's continuing now, to twist that those statements in a vain attempt to discredit my response to your inane question, "what percentage of these "shooting situations" involve the officer using their AR vs their sidearm?" One has nothing to do with the other.

And AGAIN, There is no database of such information.

Earlier I wrote,

Yes, I know. Thirty years in LE, has taught me pretty well what police officers do. Do you have any personal experience in this area? If so, please detail it for us. I'd love to hear how you know what you state next.

Another form of personal attack. I never stated I was an expert nor trainer in the matter.

Asking you for the source of your knowledge or opinions is HARDLY a "personal attack." You're just losing a disagreement, feeling sorry for yourself and scrambling for excuses. In any case, I never said you were an expert, I merely asked for your "experience in this area." AND I noticed that you didn't provide an answer to my very simple question. Let's try again. "Do you have any personal experience in this area? If so, please detail it for us." If you don't answer, it's reasonable to assume that you have none. Nothing wrong with that, it just gives us some idea of the value of your opinions.

Earlier I wrote,

In select fire they allow an officer to deliver very quick follow-up rounds, faster than a hammer from a handgun and with much greater accuracy.

This is so absurd it does not deserve a response.

TRANSLATION: I've been outclassed, out−thought and out−argued so I'll pretend that what was just written is "absurd." THE FACT IS that it's MUCH faster for the average shooter to deliver accurate fire, especially at extended ranges, with a rifle, than it is with a handgun. At such ranges, a hammer isn't even possible. Many will have trouble with a double tap from a handgun. Yet with a select fire rifle, it's easy to hold the trigger back for 2-3 rounds, delivering all of them on target.

If they had bolt action rifles, they would have been more accurate too. They fired what they actually had on hand which might have been their rifles.

And so we can see, from this evasive response, that as I supposed, you have no idea what weapons they initially used.

What is amazing is that you are sticking to your dumb statement that FA is more accurate.

Another misstatement of the facts. Please show us where I've made such a statement.

If you mean a rifle is more accurate than a pistol, that is obvious to anyone that has ever fired both. That is also irrelevant to the discussion.

If one has a select fire rifle, one has a rifle. As I've said many times, it's not necessary to put the select lever on 'full.' That's certainly NOT "irrelevant" as you claim.

FA is not more accurate than semi-auto and never will be.

There's another of your logical fallacies. This time a straw man argument.

[bigger hammer]

This is a good post. I am going to save it to show to others. It clearly states the mindset of LE.

Here is part of your failing. This IS NOT a statement of "the mindset of LE." It IS a statement of MY mindset. It's telling that you see fit to take the statement of one person and apply it to about 3/4 million others.

A LEO does not desire to kill a threat, they just fill them with more than enough lead to stop them. A distinction without a difference.

Another logical fallacy. There is a significant difference. You just don't want to see it and you also don't have a good grasp of the reality of stopping a threat. I’m guessing here but I'd bet that like many, you've taken some classes and read some magazine articles, perhaps some books and have formed ideas about how this works. I doubt that you’ve ever "seen the elephant." If I'm wrong, and you're a combat veteran with dozens of gunfights behind you, please let us know.

If there is some formula that you're aware of that tells someone in a shooting situation precisely how many rounds of what kind of ammo, fired from what kind of gun, will successfully stop the threat without killing the suspect, please let us know that too. I'm not aware of one. (CLUE HERE: it does not exist)!

I was taught to fire three round groups for self defense. Fire three rounds, reassess the situation.

I'm sorry that your training was either inadequate, or is simply, out of date. The CURRENT TRAINING and the CURRENT THINKING is to fire until you perceive that the threat is no longer a threat. Shooting three rounds may get you, or the person you were defending, killed. You may have missed. He may be wearing armor, or he may have been hit, but not in an area of his body that will make him stop, or he may have been hit and is simply not responding to having been hit. While you're "[stopping shooting and] reassess[ing]" if the threat has not been stopped, you can be killed.

The reason: because self defense was about stopping the threat, not killing them. That clearly is not the philosophy that bigger hammer teaches.

That's because there have been several incidents where people who were "reassess[ing]" were injured by the suspect. I know of two of them myself. I'm confident that there are many more. Many agencies and shooting schools used to teach "shoot two and assess." Some still may teach this. Some went to "shoot three and assess." Some taught a 'failure drill' or what is known as, in some politically incorrect venues, a 'Mozambique,' (or a 'Mo') where a third round is aimed at the head for a brain/CNS incapacitation shot. In OLDER systems there is a distinct stop in the action to "reassess." but the current and best thinking is that you'll see what's happening on the other side of your front sight as it's happening and can take action based on what you see. This applies equally to stopping shooting, to shooting more or to changing targets on the opponent.

Maybe LE should be trained to shoot the suspect in the arm or leg? That way, no one will die, because we all know that no one ever dies from being shot in the arm or leg, right? Perhaps LE should be taught to shoot the gun out of their hand. Maybe just take away LE's guns completely, and arm them only with Tasers and beanbag SG rounds because they never fail right?

A LEO does has no choice in the matter to use lethal force. The decision is ALL made by the suspect. The LEO might as well be an automaton.

Your use of the word "automaton" is misleading, probably purposefully so. No human is an "automaton." There is always the choice to do nothing, and allow an attacker who is using deadly force to complete his murderous act. However, I'd prefer that the people that I trained and still train, take action to save their lives and those of the others that they might be defending. The action they take is dictated by the suspect. As I said, [i]"Surrender quietly and voices will not even be raised. Create a situation where LEO's lives and those of others are in danger, and expect to be stopped as quickly as possible with whatever tools are the most efficient at that moment. ... [/quote]

So there is a threshold somewhere in every LEO's mind of perceived threats.

Overbroad. I doubt that "every LEO" has any single thing in mind. Some do.

If they perceive a threat, real or otherwise,

As SCOTUS has said,

... The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

It makes no difference if the threat is "real or otherwise" as far as what force is appropriate. If an LEO or citizen reasonably believes that his life or that of another is in danger, he can use deadly force.

then shoot to kill.

Nope. Shoot to stop the threat as quickly as possible. The longer the threat is allowed to continue the better chance that someone will be injured.

bigger hammer wants them to be even better at killing suspects by using FA weapons.

Nope, still phrasing the argument improperly. Death is not desirable. Stopping the threat is the goal. The fastest way to stop a threat is with a brain or CNS hit. Those are usually fatal. Next best, is by interfering with the flow of blood to the brain so that they are no longer capable of acting and lose consciousness. In shooting situations, what we're discussing, that's done by punching holes in organs, and cutting veins and arteries, so that blood flow is interfered with. Doing so is sometimes fatal.

The real bottom line here is that it's appropriate to meet deadly force with deadly force. Guns are properly considered deadly force whether they're handguns, shotguns, rifles, select fire or semi−auto. Deadly force is sometimes just that "DEADLY." Your lack of understanding of this obvious concept is telling.

Clarity on this subject is what is needed. You sir, just made it very clear where LE stands.

"You sir," just made it very clear where YOU stand. I made it clear where I stand, not "where LE stands." I speak for myself, not all of LE. True colors come out sooner or later. Yours just did AGAIN. You started AND ended this post by exposing yourself.

[SactoDoug]

Still trying to confuse FA weapons with regular rifles. Pathetic.

No matter how much you try, FA will never be more accurate than semi-auto. You can post a million words about it, but it will never change that fact.

At least you are sticking to your previous opinion of making sure that deadly force is deadly. No wonder every time I read about a police shooting today, the rounds fired are counted by the dozen.

Did you train the officers that fired on the news paper ladies? It certainly would explain a lot of things.

[SVT-40]

Still trying to confuse FA weapons with regular rifles. Pathetic.

No matter how much you try, FA will never be more accurate than semi-auto. You can post a million words about it, but it will never change that fact.

At least you are sticking to your previous opinion of making sure that deadly force is deadly. No wonder every time I read about a police shooting today, the rounds fired are counted by the dozen.

Did you train the officers that fired on the news paper ladies? It certainly would explain a lot of things.

This whole topic is silly, and this post amplifies the "silliness"...

The only difference between a FA rifle and a semi auto rifle, is the FA rifle shoots more than one round with a single trigger pull..Both rifles will be just as accurate....

It's up to the shooter, and his ability to determine if the rounds fired will hit their target...NOT THE RIFLE.

The ability to put more than one round on a target in a very rapid manner with one trigger pull will cause the threat to be neutralized in a quicker manner....


That is the whole purpose of having a FA firearm....To quickly stop a threat...

Anyone who has any expertise knows that often one or two rounds will not quickly stop a determined adversary... Often multiple hits is the only way to stop these individuals....

The problem with this thread, is many simply for one reason or another simply can't get beyond their bais against LEO's and see that SOMETIMES a FA firearm could be the best reasonable tool in the hands of a trained LEO to stop a deadly threat.

[SactoDoug]

This whole topic is silly, and this post amplifies the "silliness"...

The only difference between a FA rifle and a semi auto rifle, is the FA rifle shoots more than one round with a single trigger pull..Both rifles will be just as accurate....

It's up to the shooter, and his ability to determine if the rounds fired will hit their target...NOT THE RIFLE.

The ability to put more than one round on a target in a very rapid manner with one trigger pull will cause the threat to be neutralized in a quicker manner....


That is the whole purpose of having a FA firearm....To quickly stop a threat...

Anyone who has any expertise knows that often one or two rounds will not quickly stop a determined adversary... Often multiple hits is the only way to stop these individuals....

The problem with this thread, is many simply for one reason or another simply can't get beyond their bais against LEO's and see that SOMETIMES a FA firearm could be the best reasonable tool in the hands of a trained LEO to stop a deadly threat.

Have you ever fired FA? You really believe that FA is just as accurate as semi-auto?

A "determined adversary"? Was the 13 year old boy that had 7 rounds pumped into him a "determined adversary"? How about the two women delivering paper that had their truck turned into swiss cheeze? Just imagine how many more rounds could have been lobbed at them with FA.

How is it that everyone shot at by LE get a high number of rounds sent their way regardless of whether they were "determined" or not?

What would be a "regular" adversary, and would there be a difference in the number of rounds fired? I think not. As bigger hammer has pointed out repeatedly, he and those he trains will use a hail of bullets to stop every adversary, determined or not.

[1859sharps]

Do law enforcement agents need select fire weapons?

I personally don't think it's that big a deal if they have them or not. MOST local and state law enforcement officers do not go around with full auto firearms. even a lot of the MP 5s out there are actually semi autos.

I can't speak to federal agencies, or special units. but I think it safe to say they are more per officer than regular "rank and file".

lets be honest, most of the "cops shouldn't have full auto" is based PURELY on jealousy. The VAST, VAST amount of arguments against LEOs having full auto really does come down to I can't have one so they should be able to either.

Do MOST LEOs "need" full auto? no, of course not. they aren't in the job of laying down suppressive fire. Do I loose sleep over them having "m16s" or full auto mp5s...nope. not at all. do wish I too could have one...absolutely.

just like I don't care if a civilian has a full auto if they are responsible with it, I don't care if LEOs have full auto if they are responsible with it.

[SVT-40]

Have you ever fired FA? You really believe that FA is just as accurate as semi-auto?

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

A "determined adversary"? Was the 13 year old boy that had 7 rounds pumped into him a "determined adversary"? How about the two women delivering paper that had their truck turned into swiss cheeze? Just imagine how many more rounds could have been lobbed at them with FA.

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.....

How is it that everyone shot at by LE get a high number of rounds sent their way regardless of whether they were "determined" or not?

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.....

What would be a "regular" adversary, and would there be a difference in the number of rounds fired? I think not. As bigger hammer has pointed out repeatedly, he and those he trains will use a hail of bullets to stop every adversary, determined or not.

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".....

[Patrick Aherne]

Glad to know that your "protect and serve" only applies to those who support you in 100% of things and agree with you in 100% of things.

Funny, the oath I took wasn't protect and serve, but since you know everything about my job better than me, keep up posting.

I told you what I have available to stop a truck, given your "reasonable" restrictions of my equipment. WTF should I do? Jump in front of the truck? Throw a flare as it goes by? Waving furiously and radioing ahead to wait for the boom is my only option.

[bigger hammer]

Still trying to confuse FA weapons with regular rifles. Pathetic.

No confusion exists except on your part. Apparently there's an inability to read critically over there.

No matter how much you try, FA will never be more accurate than semi-auto. You can post a million words about it, but it will never change that fact.

Good straw man argument, another of your logical fallacies. I've NEVER said that FA is "more accurate than semi−auto" and your attempts to convince the readers otherwise simply won't fly.

At least you are sticking to your previous opinion of making sure that deadly force is deadly.

Here's where that course in critical reading may have helped you out. Ya see the word "deadly" is part of the phrase "deadly force."

No wonder every time I read about a police shooting today, the rounds fired are counted by the dozen.

As long as the threat exists it's reasonable and expected that properly trained people will shoot and will continue to do so. The time to stop shooting is when it's perceived that the threat is NO LONGER a threat. Apparently you have some problem with this fact. If so I'd guess it's because when you shoot a threat in "Call of Duty," they immediately cease to be a threat. In real life, however, that's often not the case. Good luck and I hope you get the high score or at least a new personal best!

Did you train the officers that fired on the news paper ladies? It certainly would explain a lot of things.

Nope, nothing to do with them. But nice "red herring," yet ANOTHER of your logical fallacies. FA weapons were not used in that incident.

I notice that AGAIN you failed to answer my VERY simple question about your experience. To remind the readers, earlier I wrote,

Do you have any personal experience in this area? If so, please detail it for us. If you don't answer, it's reasonable to assume that you have none. Nothing wrong with that, it just gives us some idea of the value of your opinions.

Actually I asked the question TWICE before and you failed to answer it BOTH times. Since as I guessed you have AGAIN not answered the question, it's reasonable to assume that you have NO experience in this area. I just want the readers to be aware of this so they know what value to place on your opinion.

[bigger hammer]

Have you ever fired FA? You really believe that FA is just as accurate as semi-auto?

Allow me to help you with your reading comprehension, since you don't seem to be very good at it. SVT−40 wrote this,

The only difference between a FA rifle and a semi auto rifle, is the FA rifle shoots more than one round with a single trigger pull..Both rifles will be just as accurate....

It's up to the shooter, and his ability to determine if the rounds fired will hit their target...NOT THE RIFLE.

I'm sure that you read it, but still, you completely missed the meaning of what he wrote. Now ... slowly, and sounding out every word so you don't get confused, read the second paragraph of his statement again. "A FA rifle will be just as accurate as a semi−auto rifle, It's up to the shooter and his ability to determine if the round fired will hit their target, NOT THE RIFLE." Perhaps this time it will sink in?

Perhaps you are projecting your skill, or lack thereof, with an FA weapon onto others?

As bigger hammer has pointed out repeatedly, he and those he trains will use a hail of bullets to stop every adversary, determined or not.

"[H]ail of bullets?" Quite the drama queen there! ROFL.

Your statement is so far from what I've said, that it rises to the level of a lie. As long as LEO or a citizen perceives that someone is a deadly threat it's reasonable and justified that he continue to shoot at them, until he perceives that person is no longer a threat. If that takes one round, as in the case of a situation that I was involved in, that's all it takes. If it takes hundreds of rounds, as in the North Hollywood incident, that's what it takes. I was, and still am explaining a fact of life, regarding shooting incidents to you. Perhaps if you had EVEN SOME experience in these matters your statements would have some meaning. Since you don't it's all so much hot air.

[bigger hammer]

let's be honest, most of the "cops shouldn't have full auto" is based PURELY on jealousy. The VAST, VAST amount of arguments against LEOs having full auto really does come down to I can't have one so they should be able to either.

just like I don't care if a civilian has a full auto if they are responsible with it, I don't care if LEOs have full auto if they are responsible with it.

Please don't come in here with your logic, reason and common sense. The facts just confuse some people. LOL

[KABA556]

Funny, the oath I took wasn't protect and serve, but since you know everything about my job better than me, keep up posting.

I told you what I have available to stop a truck, given your "reasonable" restrictions of my equipment. WTF should I do? Jump in front of the truck? Throw a flare as it goes by? Waving furiously and radioing ahead to wait for the boom is my only option.

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.