'Arms race' has police carrying deadlier guns. Officers armed with increasingly powerful tools.

imported post

Here, the media is (as usual) confusing semi-automatic rifles which are similar in appearance to assault rifles to being assault rifles (select-fire). As far as they are concerned they are just like any other rifle. I don't really care what they have, a gun is a gun right? Does it matter if they arehandguns,rifles,or shotguns?

Of course, many police actually do use actual assault rifles.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=835840 (Utah police buy M14)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600403_3.html (Police recievefree surplus military equipment, including M16's)

I don't see whats wrong with police having assault rifles as long as we can have them too.For police, they fulfill the role of a rifle just as fine as any "non-assault" rifle, just like they would for us. Even the military usually uses them in semi-automatic mode.

Why is it thoughthat police are allowed touse surplus M16 from the military wheras regularcivilians can't because they are "machine-guns?" Well,I suppose the argument here isthat they recieve them at little to no charge from military surplus saving everyone money from them buying semi-auto AR-15's. But why can't I also buy military surplus M16's to reduce my costs?

The biggest argument against equipping police with assault rifles, or supposed "assault weapons" like AR-15, is that they are expensive. Sincepolice are supported through tax, it probably makes much more sense to give them cheaper weapons, or best yet allowindividual officersto buy (with their ownmoney)and useon dutyweapons fromthe civilian market like the rest of us.If they want an AR-15 for the squadcar they can buy it.

Also, if police need the privelege of buying the armor-piercing rounds (like SS190,) because the criminals they are shooting have body armor, shouldn't that reason for useapply to civilians as well?

imported post

I do not recall any police asking to use armor piercing rounds.

But if we want to play the game of..."If they can why not us" I guess you should be allowed to install blue lights and a siren in your Honda Civic and kick it into hi gear as you rush to work doing 120 MPH. If the police can do it..... why not every citizen that drives a car!! :lol:

There are good reasons citizens are not allowed to do the same things. Mostly... training, responsibility and accountability. A citizencannot be firedbut you can from the departmentif you abuse it. The most a civilian will get is a traffic ticket and maybe.. loss of license for a few days. The cop can lose his job and that also counts towards losing his career!!

I know that many departmentsissue+P+ ammo and this is restricted to law enforcement. Should citizens have this ammo too? No law against it... but they cannot buy it off the shelf.

The "assault" rifles are nothing more than AR-15s or M-16 rifles.

BOTH!!!! Can be owned by civilians. AR-15 for aboutthe same price but the M-16 will be about $18,000 more for civilians. This is because the cost has gone up over the years as they change hands.

imported post

'Police won't be outgunned' The Washington Times Nation

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080324/NATION/238599847/1002/NATION

imported post

Are we forgetting that the number of incidents where high power rifles and "assault weapons" are used is insignificant compared to the number of attacks with small caliber firearms? Also, note how in the article the Brady Bunch is talking about the assault weapons ban, the go on to cite a situation where the assailant used a shotgun.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Handguns and shotguns are useless against a bad guy with a rifle 100 yards away.

Click to expand...

OTOH, there are not that many cases where such a shot is necessary, and a 100 yard shot with a rifle is not as easy to make as some people seem to think.

personally, I am not opposed to cops having a carbine in their squad, as long as they get some training and practice with it. its another tool at their disposal, and tools are inherently neither good nor bad.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I do not recall any police asking to use armor piercing rounds.

But if we want to play the game of..."If they can why not us" I guess you should be allowed to install blue lights and a siren in your Honda Civic and kick it into hi gear as you rush to work doing 120 MPH. If the police can do it..... why not every citizen that drives a car!! :lol:

There are good reasons citizens are not allowed to do the same things. Mostly... training, responsibility and accountability. A citizencannot be firedbut you can from the departmentif you abuse it. The most a civilian will get is a traffic ticket and maybe.. loss of license for a few days. The cop can lose his job and that also counts towards losing his career!!

Click to expand...

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Highway_Patrol

The NC Highway Patrol Basic School for cadets with no prior law enforcement training is twenty-nine weeks long. During this intensive training the cadet class will typically lose 40% of its members. It is in this live-in environment where the cadets learn about state and federal laws, firearms marksmanship, and high speed driving. Early every morning the cadets rise, rain or shine, for physical fitness training before starting a full day of classroom instruction. The cadets will form a tight-knit bond and learn to never leave one another "in the ditch".
Following these months of effort, the cadets are sworn in as Probationary Troopers and are assigned to their respective troops and districts. Once in their assigned district, they will participate in on-the-job training for an additional twelve weeks with an experienced trooper who is trained as a Field Training Officer, or FTO.

Without proper training, no one should be engaging in high speed pursuit driving or use advanced arsenal. I mean its not like the Army shoves a rifle in a private's hands and says "Go get 'em! Yo Joe!"

Though if you ask me, firearms training should be available in schools. And if you think it doesn't happen, then your wrong, Army JROTC South Granville High School in Creedmoor, NC has its own rifle team and is a damned good class.

But um.. LEO 229, what if the common citizen could get some good training (say from Valhalla, Blackwater, etc, etc.) ? Should it be allowed then?

imported post

Custodian wrote:

...snipped
But um.. LEO 229, what if the common citizen could get some good training (say from Valhalla, Blackwater, etc, etc.) ? Should it be allowed then?

Click to expand...

Should what be allowed?

Citizens can carry a AR-15 openly right now and in their car.

imported post

I have no problem with officers carrying these weapons. I would prefer that they are able to stop an extremely violent and heavily armed (Possibly with body armor) dangerous criminal, than have to sit there and watch helplessly or have to make the highly dangerous attempt of taking them down with only a sidearm.

If citizens can carry these weapons, I see no reason that it should even be a question as to whether or not officers can carry them.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Custodian wrote:

...snipped
But um.. LEO 229, what if the common citizen could get some good training (say from Valhalla, Blackwater, etc, etc.) ? Should it be allowed then?

Click to expand...

Should what be allowed?

Citizens can carry a AR-15 openly right now and in their car.

Click to expand...

+1 The open carry of rifles and shotguns on foot and in vehicles is permitted in most states and is practiced by some of us.

My real concern is the mentality of a police officer. As long as they have the peace officer approach to law enforcement, then everything will be fine.