The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: philw on October 12, 2009, 02:15:27 AM
-
http://www.eeekonomy.com/discussion/Should-Officers-Pay-for-the-Bang-with-their-Bucks-/70
The Madison, Wis. Police Department may soon pull the trigger on a controversial new assault rifle policy.
According to The Capital Times, the Madison Police Department has been trying to get assault rifles for its officers for years. The City Council has not granted funding for the rifles due to budgetary constraints.
In a disputed effort to better equip the officers, the department has proposed that each officer buy his or her own assault rifle.
The department wants to arm each of its 300 operational officers (those who patrol the streets or drive in the line of duty) with an AR-15. Each rifle costs $1,200. According to Capt. Vic Wahl, the amount for the rifle would be deducted from officers' payroll over 52 weeks.
Opponents of the new policy note safety concerns. The rifles would be considered the personal property of the officers, which could be potentially stolen or used if left in plain sight while off-duty.
"If you take it home at night, do you throw it in the back of the car? You throw it in the trunk? What if it gets stolen and somebody uses it? There are a whole number of problems that could happen," said Paul Skidmore, a member of the Public Safety Review Committee.
Supporters argue officers should have the right to a more accurate weapon.
So, what do you think? Should police weaponry be publicly-funded or purchased by the officers themselves?
Tools of Trade IMO all the Tools you need to do your job should be supplied by your employer or if they don't they should give you a Tool Allowance as part of your Salary package
-
Thats actually very common, the good news is you can write it off on your taxs.
Police do not need rifles.( beat cops) it was only after the LA shoot out that they started begging for them. Guess what, it was not the tools the LAPD had on hand that made that a bad gun fight, it was the LACK of training.
Now granted 9 mm and 12ga buck is not the best tools,( not that there is anything wrong with them, both are very deadly, but a bigger hand gun and slugs would be helpful) but if even one officer had used his 12ga and buck shot to shoot the unarmored legs of the bad guys. it would have ended very quickly. Instead every LEA is crying for more tools... if you can't use the tools you have,more tools are not going to help.
-
Gonna disagree Tab
There are times when a rifle is more better. Accuracy (buck spreads at at range darn quickley) and penetration. I'm not sure .556 is the ticket due to range issues, I would be happier with .762x39 for sub 100 yards, but the the point is, I would want the rifle. The issue of standardiztion is legit. Our local SO used to make officers buy their own guns, they had a wide menu to choose from. The new Sheriff killed that and mandated that the Department would provide a .40 SW in (brand x I forget) as he wantd deputies to be able to exchange mags. in a firefight. He did allow "backups' of whatever caliber, but you had to carry brand x. Requireing someone to pony up $1200, plus mags, optics etc for brand x carbines on a $35K salary seems excessive since they will be using it to protect the tax payers, who should be paying for it.
FQ13
-
do you want the average beat cop taking a shot at 100 yds? I don't
There was a shoot out not far from me with 3 officers and 1 bad guy at 7 yards or less.
60 something shots were fired, 2 hits.
the 1st officer emptyed an AR( 30 rounds) no hits
The 2nd officer emptyed his side arm, reloaded and emptyed it again. no hits
the final officer fired twice, 2 hits... the hits where ankle and lower arm( wrist area)
now tell me, do you want any of these officers making a 100 yd shot?
-
how about this then TAB
opens up to legal issues
officer has his own pistol and own Ammo different to what the station / department has or recommends
there is a shooting and the officer ends up in court getting roasted about how he used his own equipment that is not recommended and gets done for that due to some technicality that
"apparently the officer chose to use a different ammo / pistol as the ones recommended by the officer's department were not efficient in KILLING the son of my client. )
you know how greasy lawyers can be.
there needs to be legal protection if they are having to go down this path.
or better still instead of the gubberment waisting all the cash they are throwing around put it where it needs to be.
-
Give 'em a 30/30. Hard hitting, accurate at 100 yards and a LOT cheaper.
-
TAB and Others:
As the father of a LEO, I can tell you that what they all want first and foremost is more and more training. For small town and non-metropolitan county agencies funding is always a problem and limits both training and equipment purchases. So, if the county or city PD has decided that the officers can carry better equipment on their own dime, although it is a shame that they have to pay for it, at least the powers at be have taken a first step towards untying their hands with respect to AR's, tazers or whatever it might be. They ALL deserve whatever equipment gives them any advantage, be it tactical or psychological, even if it is something they might use in an active duty situation once a year or never in a career.
Unfortunately, the "they don't need AR's" argument is based on anti-gun leanings and simple ignorance. If you havn't been there or very close to it then keep your mouth shut until you educate yourself even if the purpose of your education shores up your conflicting opinon. Arm-chair quarterbacking based on what you read/see in the media never equips anyone with all the facts needed to "walk in the shoes" of those on the front lines.
TexGun
-
do you want the average beat cop taking a shot at 100 yds? I don't
There was a shoot out not far from me with 3 officers and 1 bad guy at 7 yards or less.
60 something shots were fired, 2 hits.
the 1st officer emptyed an AR( 30 rounds) no hits
The 2nd officer emptyed his side arm, reloaded and emptyed it again. no hits
the final officer fired twice, 2 hits... the hits where ankle and lower arm( wrist area)
now tell me, do you want any of these officers making a 100 yd shot?
TAB, read On Combat please. You might actually understand why stuff like this happens and stop picking on people thrown into a life and death situation they generally don't want to be in, but do so because they have the drive to protect others.
If the choice is we embolden the criminal element (generally sociopaths or the more sever subset of sociopathology, psychopaths) by letting them think they are better armed and more likely to prevail in a deadly confrontation or up-arming LEOs, I choose the latter.
For a society to remain viable, every citizen must understand there is a personal risk involved to innocents in dealing with the lawless. The good guys practice hard to limit this risk, the bad guys use it as a shield. Fortunately it appears the general population has started to understand this basic tenant again, much to the chagrin of the elites.
-
TexGun,
I was not down playing the LEOs needs. I honestly think a 30/30 is a better choice (even a .44 mag lever would be IMHO). Better man stopper. Accurate at 100 yards ( and more). Also easy to use, easier top off capability and familiar to many.
-
TexGun,
I was not down playing the LEOs needs. I honestly think a 30/30 is a better choice (even a .44 mag lever would be IMHO). Better man stopper. Accurate at 100 yards ( and more). Also easy to use, easier top off capability and familiar to many.
TAB brings up good points about limiting range in an urban environment, but lets not forget........... This is an arms race. (Present day Chicago is the end result of what happens when police armories can not keep up with criminals)
+1 to what TexGun said.
There is no question that police need stopping power. Perhaps something like the KRISS in .45 acp would be a very nice choice..... but the "west hollywood shootout" showed that there is a very real need for them to carry a round that can penetrate body armor...... Perhaps something in 5.7
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=142826010
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=142571320
-
TexGun,
I was not down playing the LEOs needs. I honestly think a 30/30 is a better choice (even a .44 mag lever would be IMHO). Better man stopper. Accurate at 100 yards ( and more). Also easy to use, easier top off capability and familiar to many.
No offense taken Haz, you actually offered advice/alternative instead of criticism. My gripe has always been with those who are quick to point out what others "need" or "don't need". ;)
-
A bit off topic but worth mentioning.
My rifle/pistol range has a policy of FREE membership to our town PD and a few neighboring towns as part of their charter. The PD are allowed to schedule training there as well with enough notice!
It's a small town, granted but it's proximity to several rather nasty urban areas like Boston, Worcester and Lowell, one never knows when training is the difference between life and the alternative.
-
No offense taken Haz, you actually offered advice/alternative instead of criticism. My gripe has always been with those who are quick to point out what others "need" or "don't need". ;)
as a tax payer, I sign thier checks, I do get to say what they need and don't need. Most gov employees forget that.
-
At my Sportsman's CluB (we put a fishing rod on our car now and then) we close our range twice a month so that our county SWAT team can have it to train. I forgot once, showed up, but was glad to have to leave...they need all the training they can get.
-
The West Hollywood, and Miami shoot outs show that Police and FBI agents need training in dealing with armored BG's.
This stuff about Cops needing weapons that will penetrate a vest is crap because the BG's will just upgrade their armor. There are vests available that will STOP a .308. What is needed is training on the Vulnerabilities of body armor. No matter the "level" or brand, there are places on all vests that can be penetrated by a .22 short, There are important body parts NOT covered.
As for High velocity rounds like the 5.7 ask yourself this,
I have an armored shooter, do I want to spend time and ammo poking holes through him till he bleeds out, or do I want to knock the everliving crap out of him with something that will dump a bunch of energy without penetrating, like a 454 or 12 Ga. slug.
Ask yourself THIS question, You're the BG, , how many times would you want to be hit with slow non penetrating thumpers ?
-
as a tax payer, I sign thier checks, I do get to say what they need and don't need. Most gov employees forget that.
Not if they are paying for their own gear. Then it's none of your business.
-
Opponents of the new policy note safety concerns. The rifles would be considered the personal property of the officers, which could be potentially stolen or used if left in plain sight while off-duty.
"If you take it home at night, do you throw it in the back of the car? You throw it in the trunk? What if it gets stolen and somebody uses it? There are a whole number of problems that could happen," said Paul Skidmore, a member of the Public Safety Review Committee.
Cops buying their own duty weapons is not new....it's sad that they have to do it, but at least it should be an option if the department can't/won't.
It's the above ignorant-assed quote from some left-tard that keeps our LEOs up against the long odds. What do they think cops do with their weapons at home, use 'em for doorstops?
This is the same type of bureaucrat that also cuts funding for LEO training because "they don't need to shoot that much ammo just to practice, do they?"
Bastards.
>:( >:( >:(
-
Cops buying their own duty weapons is not new....it's sad that they have to do it, but at least it should be an option if the department can't/won't.
It's the above ignorant-assed quote from some left-tard that keeps our LEOs up against the long odds. What do they think cops do with their weapons at home, use 'em for doorstops?
This is the same type of bureaucrat that also cuts funding for LEO training because "they don't need to shoot that much ammo just to practice, do they?"
Bastards.
>:( >:( >:(
lots of them do, one of the guys I shoot trap with is the training officer for a local LEA, most officer only fire what they need to qualify with. I know other officers that shoot 2 mags worth before every shift.
just like the miltary, you have to break every thing down so the dumbest can understand it.
-
The pretty recent post of a celebrity (can;t remember his name off hand) buying AR's for the Phoenix PD, was one way.
Other PD's utilize seized property sold at auction, cash used in drug arrests, etc,.. for additional funds. FOP, PBA, etc,..
FWIW, Massad Ayoob wrote an analysis of the N. Hollywood shooting, and summed it up with training. One decent shooting officer, with a 30-30, could have ended the situation, in 42 minutes less than the whole event took place (44 min.)
-
TW, it was David Spade from SNL...
-
The pretty recent post of a celebrity (can;t remember his name off hand) buying AR's for the Phoenix PD, was one way.
Other PD's utilize seized property sold at auction, cash used in drug arrests, etc,.. for additional funds. FOP, PBA, etc,..
FWIW, Massad Ayoob wrote an analysis of the N. Hollywood shooting, and summed it up with training. One decent shooting officer, with a 30-30, could have ended the situation, in 42 minutes less than the whole event took place (44 min.)
I read an evaluation of the FBI shoot out in Miami that came to similar conclusion
-
TW, it was David Spade from SNL...
Thank you Timothy, I was having a Monday Moment,.... :-\
-
I agree that LEO should be able to get what they need to get the job done depending on their environment; i.e. Lever gun, Semi-auto or whatever.
I will say that training is probably the most over looked aspect of it all. I used to work as a Nuclear Security Officer at the local Nuke Power plant, we were required by our head of security to qualify with 4 weapons each year. The M1-A, AR-15, Rem 11-87, and 9mm handgun. The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) only required us to qual with the handgun. We had to have 80% minimum for the handgun and rifles and only 50% on the shotgun. Plus we went to the range every 3 months for weapons training, or if you were on the Tactical Response Team (proud to say I was one ;D) you went every 45 days.
One of the local PD's also used the range and we found out that they only have to hit 70% minimum to pass their qualifications. Now as a citizen, I would like my PD to be able to hit 90%, but that is my .02 worth.
-
I think it is a GOOD thing for LEO's to buy their own weapons. People tend to take care of their own stuff better.
Give them an allowance in their pay, set the requirements (mainly caliber choices for logistics), get discounted prices for them, give them plenty of training ammo, plenty of training, and high proficiency standards.
-
FTA ;
give them plenty of training ammo, plenty of training, and high proficiency standards.
These are important no matter WHO's paying.