Militarization of the police in cartoon format

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

 Your shotgun is a poor choice...unless you want "acceptable collateral damage" from all that buckshot flying downrange.

As a police officer what would you suggest for home defense? I have a pit bull and several guns, but I am curious 

[Just_A_Guy]

I thought the rationale for a shotgun was that the shot is less likely to penetrate a wall.  Not true?

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

As a police officer what would you suggest for home defense? I have a pit bull and several guns, but I am curious 

I think that always depends on the skill level of the individual.  For me it would most likely be one of our Glocks, or if I could get to it, my not fully automatic, AR15.  Those are the two weapons I am most comfortable using.  I would say whatever you are most comfortable handling.

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I thought the rationale for a shotgun was that the shot is less likely to penetrate a wall.  Not true?

I always thought it was the lack of need to aim if you are firing down a hallway.  That and the sound of a shotgun being racked is chilling...especially in the dark (been there heard that.)

The load of the shell makes a difference.  Buckshot goes through sheetrock just fine.  Birdshot will too if you are close enough to the wall.

Edited May 27, 2016 by mirkwood

[unixknight]

14 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I've been shot at several times.  Only once was while not in my car.

Glad you're still with us.  Do you know what they were shooting at you with?

[NightSG]

11 hours ago, mirkwood said:

The simple fact that you can’t tell the difference between a fully automatic and a semi automatic rifle does not equate to the rifle choice being poor.

The only external difference would be the number of positions on the fire mode selector.  Even then, it's not uncommon to have the FA marking stamped on a SA rifle.

Quote

MRAP’s serve a purpose.

An exceptionally rare purpose outside of a war zone.  Might as well argue for a few A-10s while you're at it because they just might come in handy someday.

Quote

Your shotgun is a poor choice...unless you want "acceptable collateral damage" from all that buckshot flying downrange.

So what are those things still clamped into holders in most of the patrol cars around here?  Broomsticks in case of a Quidditch riot?  There's a lot more than just buckshot that can be stuffed through a 12ga. (Or in this case, a 10ga.)  Buckshot, slugs, beanbags, rubber buck, rubber slugs, etc.  

Quote

The Garand is heavy and unwieldy and fires the 30.06 round.  Imagine the issue of that round and penetration.  Terrible urban caliber, unless you don't worry about "acceptable collateral damage."

Again, peacetime LE isn't limited to hardball.  Barnes makes some very good .30 cal bullets that, in my testing, didn't penetrate any more than .223 soft point.  

OTOH, anything will overpenetrate air.  If you're hitting the target, 8 rounds is more than enough.  (Historic evidence suggests 3 is plenty.)  If you can miss fast enough and often enough to win, you could be making a fortune teaching that technique.  Look at the Empire State Building shooting a few years ago; two cops fired 16 rounds at one suspect and managed to injure nine bystanders in the process, three with direct hits and the other six with ricochets and shrapnel.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Again, peacetime LE isn't limited to hardball.  

What does "peacetime LE" mean, NightSG?  

[mordorbund]

16 hours ago, NightSG said:

One of the first things I found out about FA fire is that when the situation changes, you have to actively stop shooting, whereas even during rapid fire with a semiauto all you have to do is not shoot anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the training for automatic weapons was to fire 3 rounds in a burst - that you don't clamp the trigger Rambo-style because you're magazine doesn't hold infinite ammo like Rambo's. 

[NightSG]

50 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the training for automatic weapons was to fire 3 rounds in a burst - that you don't clamp the trigger Rambo-style because you're magazine doesn't hold infinite ammo like Rambo's. 

Ideally, yes, but that's still two more rounds that you would otherwise have had to make a conscious decision to fire.  Also, the natural reaction in a stressful situation is to tense up the hand.  (Hence the whole "finger off the trigger until the sights are on target" rule.)  With SA, that's one shot.  With FA, it turns into an uncontrolled mag dump.

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

What does "peacetime LE" mean, NightSG?  

Peacetime law enforcement.  As opposed to open warfare.

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

Glad you're still with us.  Do you know what they were shooting at you with?

Mostly handguns.  One we are not sure due to the large number of firearms we recovered.  Most likely either a .30-30 or a .45 revolver.  One a misfiring 30.06.

This list does not include the people who did not fire their weapon at me/us.  The rifle/shotgun count climbs steeply in that category. 

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Mostly handguns.  One we are not sure due to the large number of firearms we recovered.  Most likely either a .30-30 or a .45 revolver.  One a misfiring 30.06.

This list does not include the people who did not fire their weapon at me/us.  The rifle/shotgun count climbs steeply in that category. 

How well (or badly) did the handgun rounds penetrate?  I'm just curious.  I've seen them test that in Mythbusters but they were using pretty high caliber stuff so it doesn't carry over so well.

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, NightSG said:

The only external difference would be the number of positions on the fire mode selector.  Even then, it's not uncommon to have the FA marking stamped on a SA rifle.

 

Thank you for making my point for me.  Most of those scary fully automatic rifles you have been ranting about...are not.  They are semi automatic.

SG knows the difference and the point I've made.  For those of you who do not:

Fully automatic = a single trigger pull continues to fire bullets until the magazine is empty or you take your finger off the trigger.

Semi automatic = one trigger pull equals one bullet.

SG is trying to scare you because the two weapons LOOK the same.  He is also inaccurately telling you that all police officers are carrying fully automatic rifles.  This is untrue.  SWAT are issued fully automatics.  Everyone else who has one is issued semi automatic.  Not every officer even has a rifle.  Half my crew do not have rifles.

 

Quote

An exceptionally rare purpose outside of a war zone.  Might as well argue for a few A-10s while you're at it because they just might come in handy someday.

MRAP need is uncommon, but far from your "exceptionally rare" statement.  The rest of your comment makes you hard to take seriously or consider reasonable.

 

Quote

So what are those things still clamped into holders in most of the patrol cars around here?  Broomsticks in case of a Quidditch riot?  There's a lot more than just buckshot that can be stuffed through a 12ga. (Or in this case, a 10ga.)  Buckshot, slugs, beanbags, rubber buck, rubber slugs, etc.  

Most agencies have switched to the AR15.  Maybe your area hasn't.  Poor choice in my opinion.  Either way, it still isn't a scary fully automatic is it?

Quote

Barnes makes some very good .30 cal bullets that, in my testing, didn't penetrate any more than .223 soft point.  

Not a convincing argument against that scary black rifle.

 

Quote

If you're hitting the target, 8 rounds is more than enough.  (Historic evidence suggests 3 is plenty.) 

That is a really weak argument.  If you really are an experienced shooter and have any sort of quality self defense training, then shame on you for even saying that.  You shoot til the threat is stopped, whether that be 1, 5, 10 or 20. 

I honestly can't believe you just said that.  Maybe you have far less experience with firearms and self defense than I have given you credit for.  That has to be it. *smh*

Quote

Look at the Empire State Building shooting a few years ago; two cops fired 16 rounds at one suspect and managed to injure nine bystanders in the process, three with direct hits and the other six with ricochets and shrapnel.

Was that with those scary black fully automatic rifles?

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

12 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I think that always depends on the skill level of the individual.  For me it would most likely be one of our Glocks, or if I could get to it, my not fully automatic, AR15.  Those are the two weapons I am most comfortable using.  I would say whatever you are most comfortable handling.

Thanks. We do own guns but my dog is a specially trained guard dog. If you break into my house she'll attack ferociously and without a shred of mercy. 

[Still_Small_Voice]

I am against law enforcement having fully automatic rifles or submachine guns.  I don't care if they have semi automatic 20 or 30 rounds firearms.  They got a job to do and need the tools to do the job right.

I don't care if civilians own semi-automatic firearms with 30 round capacity or greater.  I am not for civilians owning fully automatic though.  But the laws are too strict presently.  If someone is caught with an unregistered full automatic firearm the penalty as no more than ten years imprisonment or a fine of $250,000, or both.  That is way excessive.  The penalty for possession of an unregistered full automatic (if no crime has been committed) should just be confiscation of the firearm.

Edit: I wish sound suppressors were legal without all the excessive paperwork.  I have hearing damage from firearm noise.  Most suppressors simply just reduce the noise of gun fire.  The supersonic crackle of bullets breaking the sound barrier can still be easily heard.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Still_Small_Voice

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

.  I am not for civilians owning fully automatic though. 

The sad truth in life is that even if you are against it, thugs and drug dealers aren't against it. In fact, they would prefer you be unarmed. 

[mirkwood]

 

Quote

How well (or badly) did the handgun rounds penetrate?  I'm just curious.  I've seen them test that in Mythbusters but they were using pretty high caliber stuff so it doesn't carry over so well.

There were holes in the cars that were hit.  Beyond that I don't know, I wasn't part of the investigation and my car wasn't hit.

Edited May 27, 2016 by mirkwood
weird quote tags

[unixknight]

6 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

There were holes in the cars that were hit.  Beyond that I don't know, I wasn't part of the investigation and my car wasn't hit.

Glad to hear that.

I think there's plenty of value in adding some kind of armor to police cruisers.  I'd vote for that.  It seems to me if it's worth it to add armor and bullet proof glass to cars ridden in by politicians, it's gotta be worth it for police officers.

Not okay with ordinary local departments having armored vehicles though.  I don't doubt that there are sometimes circumstances that justify it, but then I'd say maybe they should be held at the state level.

Edited May 27, 2016 by unixknight

[Still_Small_Voice]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The sad truth in life is that even if you are against it, thugs and drug dealers aren't against it. In fact, they would prefer you be unarmed. 

I did not infer civilians be unarmed.  I disagree with disarming Americans.  I wish we had more sane people who would learn self defense with semi automatic firearms (with 20 and 30 round magazines).  Fully automatic is not needed.  The military went mainly to 3 round burst fire because of the ammo spray from full automatic.  It's not the amount of bangs your rifle makes but the amount of hits that count.

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I did not infer civilians be unarmed.  

 

34 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

  I am not for civilians owning fully automatic though.

Sounds like you are for certain types of restrictions. And that's fine. 

Just remember that any type of gun law won't be followed by criminals. 

Edited May 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[NeuroTypical]

21 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I think there's plenty of value in adding some kind of armor to police cruisers.  I'd vote for that.  It seems to me if it's worth it to add armor and bullet proof glass to cars ridden in by politicians, it's gotta be worth it for police officers.

Not okay with ordinary local departments having armored vehicles though.  

Um... Unix?  

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Um... Unix?  

Um... Neuro?

[NeuroTypical]

Just wondering - how come you said you saw value in adding armor to police cars, and then in the next breath said you were not ok with cops having armored vehicles?

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just wondering - how come you said you saw value in adding armor to police cars, and then in the next breath said you were not ok with cops having armored vehicles?

Because I was being unclear as a result of posting in a rush

When I mentioned "armored vehicles" I'm talking about APCs and the like.  A police car with armor is, in my mind, no different from wearing bullet proof vests, which I have no problem with.  It's not militarization.

[anatess2]

On MRAPs and "rare use"...

So... Tampa Bay local government spent $22,000 of taxpayer money to purchase 2 used SNOW PLOWS.  Yes, you read that right.  Snow Plows in Tampa Florida.  When did it last snow in Tampa?  Well... it did snow in Tampa back in 1977... a staggering 0.2 inches of snow.  Hah!  I mean, that may be very rare but it justifies the purchase of super cheap snow plows right?

Okay okay... if you would stop laughing at the sight of snow plows on the streets of Tampa... These 2 snow plows have been very helpful in clearing the roads of debris after a tropical storm or hurricane.  And they were a lot cheaper and faster than bulldozers.  But yes, bulldozers wouldn't have been as easily ridiculed.

How does this relate to MRAPs?  Well, from what I understand, the DoD had an MRAP oversupply crisis when a previous administration wanted a robust military and the next administration didn't.  So, the DoD offered the MRAPs to law enforcement meeting certain criteria for justification of its use so it can meet its budget.  So, the cops only have to pay for the cost of re-locating the MRAPs and their maintenance and they get to use it but the DoD still owns the behemoths.

Now, what are the justifications that the DoD require before they will give the things out?  Well, first of all is the frequency and type of criminal activity the agencies are handling.  Border cities that have to deal with drug and gun traffickers get a leg up than the sleepy mid-country cities on that line for MRAP distribution, etc. etc.

Of course, MRAPs are not gonna be used much for mine-resistance and ambush protection just like the Tampa snow plows are not gonna be used much for plowing snow.  But yeah, they have many "alternative" uses in the same manner that the snow plow is used for clearing roads of storm debris.  As some guy was quoted on National Defense Magazine:

• “We had been on the list to get an armored vehicle for several years and got lucky when the MRAPs became available,” Henley said. “There’s no way we could have afforded a vehicle with this level of protection.”  The department has used the vehicle to serve warrants on potentially violent suspects, Henley said. Without it, an officer would have to approach a residence on foot or in a patrol car. The SWAT team has sporadic access to a Bearcat armored car that is stationed more than an hour away, he said.  “We were having to do it the old fashioned way and put a man in harm’s way to approach a situation,” Henley said. “It’s more about the intimidation factor than anything else. Someone looks out their window and sees that big ol’ MRAP sitting there … it changes their whole thought process pretty quickly.”

So yeah, I really don't know much about guns or law enforcement or "militarization" (what does that even mean?).  What I do know is that it is silly to base law enforcement policies on how it "looks".  We can ridicule the snow plows all we want but they have been very useful.