Why do cops need guns that have more than six bullets?

Its certainly not because of the good law abiding citizens of the USA. It's beacuse of all the criminal elements, drug cartels, and organised crime gangs who arm themselves with easily available semi/ fully auto firearms.

In Australia as you all probably know, 1,000,000 our semi auto rifles and shotguns that were semi auto or pump action were taken from us after the Port Arthur shooting in 1997. Too have a handgun now we must be a member of a club.

The funny thing is, we had a media report here today saying that the 1,000,000 guns taken from us have been replaced by other guns which have been purchased since 1997 and there are now more licenced firearms than in 1997. I was a police officer and we used 6 shot revolvers up until ater 2000 then changed to semi auto clocks. I thought it was hypocritical for cops to have semi auto handguns when no one else could but thats here in Australia, not the USA.

Police in America need protection like the law abiding people. Going up against some drug #ed idiot with an assault rifile while your firing your 6 shot pea shooter is not going to end well.

As much as some people seem to dislike the Police here on ATS (sometimes for good reason) the good Police deserve the best protection they can easily carry and access quickly.

I have a feeling if we take guns away from police the number of police brutality and beating cases will spike dramatically.

With all attempts at central control by government flunkies who know nothing about running a business, lets also look at "unintended consequences" (or maybe not?) of restricting magazine capacity:

It may no longer be cost effective or profitable for any gun manufacturer to make such "high" (what's that even mean? More empty rhetoric) capacity magazines, so they'll stop making them.

Then, the police won't have to worry about their own magazine capacity, it will also be limited.

To answer your headline question: cops need more than six bullets at a time because sometimes it takes more than 6 bullets to stop a psycho or someone on PCP. Sometimes they miss. Sometimes there is more than one person. Sometimes they have to cover fire. Sometimes they need a few for the window and a few for the person.

See the example video below, an attorney gets shot at multiple times but manages to keep walking after the incident. Even with a full clip unloaded at him at point blank range, it would take more to make him stop moving.

Originally posted by Snsoc

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by Snsoc

 

Just become better shots huh? That requires shooting often...which costs money....we went from shooting every month to shooting once a year cause we are broke. Every department is broke and ammo seems to be the first thing they cut.

Why would I go into battle with an opponent that is allowed to have a better weapon system than me? I have a family...friends...responsibilities...it is nonsense to think that I would go into work with a primitive weapon system.

I understand the point you are trying to make...but cops win most battles through psychology...there is a certain effect we can put on the public...they know we are better trained and have top of the line equipment which pushes people away from wanting conflict. If we now had worse equipment..and they don't we dont train as much...it just makes them that more confident.

I and even if it is 1 in 100 cases or even 1 in 1000....guess what...that is the incident that im training for....the really messy one...where I may need 50 bullets.

I didn't know that, sir, about the budget cuts. That's rough. The gov't has plenty of ammo for DHS but not for you.

You guys have the hardest job in the world and I respect it. Please don't take my posts as being anti-police.

Of course you should be able to match or beat the firepower of outlaws. But I'm concerned that gun controllers also want to disarm non-law breakers at a time when the economy and the social fabric are worn thin.

I hear ya man...fact is things are messed up everywhere it seems...and most cops feel the exact same way as everyone on this website. My wife works in the health care profession and they are seeing similar issues with budget cuts. I think it is really bad in Illinois.

I can tell you for a fact that I will not enforce any law that takes guns away from citizens that have a FOID card...Ill resign first...

reply to post by Obsrvr

Originally posted by Obsrvr
I'm pretty sure the police need more than six bullets because the bad guys have more than six bullets. Is that okay with you or do you like the fact that the police are outgunned?

Yes. I like the fact that police are outgunned. They do not need firepower. They have the most powerful weapons available to them. The Radio. Numbers. With those two elements police can overwhelm and capture the vast majority of perps.

A handful of badguys VS. a multitude of police with assistance from paramilitary trained officers(IE. SWAT). I am betting on the police. That is all the power they need. If, and only if, a truly dangerous situation evolved, that is what the national guard is for.

My point here is that police do not need the power that is bestowed upon them. Even with this power that they do have they call for backup, surround the area, and look out for their safety more than anything else. Columbine is a good example of this. A couple of officers could have ended the situation. Instead, they wanted to ensure that they were safe from threats before they moved onto their responsibility. With this mindset, police do not need superior firepower. Why? They ensure superior numbers in any kind of major upheaval before doing their job. An excellent self-preservation tactic yet it does nothing to help anyone else.

Im sorry but you don't have any idea what your talking about....There are many situations where Police don't get the chance to call for backup. For example, you stop a vehicle on a remote road, person in the car tries to shoot ya. What do you do? Ask them to please stop until back up arrives?
Or you turn up to a domestic dispute. Knock on the door, perp threatens to kill wife and kids. Do you wait for backup or risk them dying for no reason.
Police are accountable for their actions and should be. If they kill someone unlawfully, they should be punished like anyone.
Saying Police should be unarmed in the USA of all places is ridiculous.

4 tyres on car + 2 kneecaps.

Thats assuming the cop has 100% accuracy....

The general public isn't allowed to own numerous weapons that cops are.... Why aren't civilians able to purchase and carry switch blade knives or sapper gloves and cops can? Even riflemen in the military carry rifles that aren't full automatic but do have the ability to fire three round burst.... It would make better sense for cops to be armed with .45 Colt 1911s and do away with the double tap method of firing on an armed person... That would reduce the chance of innocent bystanders being shot by accident... The Marine Corps is now equipping those required to be armed with a pistol with a high tech version of the 1911 A1 after renewing the old WWII versions until they have become too worn to be refurbished any more..

Originally posted by Sandalphon
To answer your headline question: cops need more than six bullets at a time because sometimes it takes more than 6 bullets to stop a psycho or someone on PCP. Sometimes they miss. Sometimes there is more than one person. Sometimes they have to cover fire. Sometimes they need a few for the window and a few for the person.

See the example video below, an attorney gets shot at multiple times but manages to keep walking after the incident. Even with a full clip unloaded at him at point blank range, it would take more to make him stop moving.

edit on 13-1-2013 by Sandalphon because: (no reason given)

Maybe he was shooting blanks? And the idiot was shooting from the hip.

Something does not add up for me here!

Regardless big fast rounds(9mm, 40s&w, .44mag, 10mm) over-penetrate and do not disperse their energy within the target. I personally like smaller rounds in jacket hollow point configuration; less recoil with total energy dispersion.

I have no problem with cops having 10, 20, 50 round clips/magazines but the same courtesy should be extended to people who qualify to buy guns legally.

reply to post by Snsoc


Good point indeed.

Originally posted by Snsoc


According to a 3-year study of Portland police shootings:

“There appears to be a relationship between the amount of ammunition a weapon holds and a tendency to shoot more.

OK...so what is the problem with limiting high-capacity magazines again?

Why do cops need more than 6 bullets? Because they are cops.

Should we ask why the military has everything from M-4/M-16's...or for that matter RPG's, drones etc. ?

We want the bad guys to be out-gunned.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I have no problem with cops having 10, 20, 50 round clips/magazines but the same courtesy should be extended to people who qualify to buy guns legally.

Why?

Would you ask the same equity in weapons with the military as well? If so or not...why?

Just exploring the premise that civilians should be equally armed as law-enforcement or military. At first glance it seems a faulty idea.

And how do you feel about regulating secondary transfers? Private sales or the gun show loophole, all where no background check what-so-ever is neccessary.

Originally posted by tkwasny
The .30 cal M1 used in WWII, "the finest infantry rifle in military history" (at the time) holds 8 rounds.

That is bolt action right. Now try and come under fire with todays military Automatic weapons complete with smart bullets. do you think you can pull that bolt fast enough so that it is a fair fight?

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of fighting off and defending your country against a tyrannical Govt force foreign or domestic. If you can't bear the same arms as the tyrannical govt you will have no hope never throwing them off.

Not for hunting, Skeet shooting or Olympic competition target shooting.

Muslim camps in the US were training, under the cloak of religious freedom, their member with hand grenades, grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers. It was filmed and they can be seen using these weapons that are illegal to possess in almost every state. But the Feds did nothing to disarm these training camps and there are more and more in every state each year.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I have no problem with cops having 10, 20, 50 round clips/magazines but the same courtesy should be extended to people who qualify to buy guns legally.

Why?

Because cops can't be everywhere at the same time and they usually arrive after a crime has been committed to start the legal process if any evidence can be found. Do you want to be a potential victim because you had too much faith in the police?

I don't hate the police. I respect their job and all the inherit danger they face regardless of any corruption.

Would you ask the same equity in weapons with the military as well? If so or not...why?

The military should have better weapons than the police. Do you disagree here? What annoys me is seeing the police trying to match the military in terms of firepower with armored personel carriers, automatic rifles, etc. Some towns have been crossing the line between police and military. It sends the wrong message to the public and puts undue stress on the local budget where money could be spent on the fire department, schools, roads, day-care centers, parks, etc.

Just exploring the premise that civilians should be equally armed as law-enforcement or military. At first glance it seems a faulty idea.

And how do you feel about regulating secondary transfers? Private sales or the gun show loophole, all where no background check what-so-ever is neccessary.

I thought you need a gun permit before you can legally buy a gun from anywhere, including pawn shops or gun shows. Am I wrong? When all else fails what will stop someone from going to some big city and buying anything they wish used from the ghetto?

Gun Control cannot work in america because there are too many guns already in circulation and because america has always been a militarised nation rife with racial and economic tensions. Think about it. And when the economy collapses I would hate to be one without a gun and some ammo. Guns are not panachea but they sure as hell are better than nothing.

this is why, Name : Gadell, Scott
Rank: P.O.

Shield #: 27037 Command: 101 Pct.
Date of Death: 1986-06-28 Cause of Death: Shot by perptrator-Investigation

Officer Gadell was shot and killed while he and his partner were in a foot pursuit. The officer chased the suspect into an alley and exchanged shots. As Officer Gadell was reloading his revolver the suspect was able to come up behind him and shot and killed him. The suspect fled but was apprehended two months later.

As a result of this shooting the NYPD authorized the use of speed loaders for its members.

Officer Gadell had been with the agency for three years.

Killed while he was reloading his weapon!!!

reply to post by Snsoc


Strategically they would be better off with the larger caliber 45 and fewer rounds (7+1 std)

Military switched from the 45 to the 9mm ( 15 round mag) because it did hold a more rounds and kicks much less.

But the 45 is so powerful it will lift someone right off the ground and throw them back. It was designed to be used against people all hopped up on drugs such that they felt no pain.

en.wikipedia.org...

American units fighting Moro guerrillas during the Philippine-American War using the then-standard Colt M1892 revolver, in .38 Long Colt, found it to be unsuitable for the rigors of jungle warfare, particularly in terms of stopping power, as the Moros had very high battle morale and frequently used drugs to inhibit the sensation of pain.[9] The U.S. Army briefly reverted to using the M1873 single-action revolver in .45 Colt caliber, which had been standard during the late 19th century; the heavier bullet was found to be more effective against charging tribesmen.[10] The problems prompted the then–Chief of Ordnance, General William Crozier, to authorize further testing for a new service pistol.[10]

en.wikipedia.org...

Soldiers in the field had a lot of concerns with the M9, notably a lack of confidence in its stopping power[10] resulting from the use of the 9mm ball round, a significant factor in military evaluations because the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) prohibit use of expanding or fragmenting bullets in warfare.

Military elite such as the Seals and Rangers never stopped using the 45 and the rest of them will likely be switching back eventually.

reply to post by Snsoc

reply to post by kawika


I felt more secure carrying a nearly worn out Springfield made 1911 .45 automatic than the M-16s that were being issued in 1968... I was a TACParty radio operator and well protected by grunts most of the time and could pick up a M-16 from a friendly KIA or WIA when the situation called for me to need one... The military had to honor a contract that required them to purchase ball type powder from Olin when the M-16 was designed to use stick type powder made by Western... I never fired a first generation M-16 that didn't jam up after firing just a few rounds.. We could put no more than 17 rounds in a 20 round magazine because the bolt would short cycle if we used more even with the updated ones... I have since fired a full auto CAR -16 that was capable of firing over 2000 rounds before it was cleaned without any problems.. People will rely on the "spray and pray" method rather than aim a weapon with a high capacity magazine.

reply to post by hypervigilant


Yup, heard really bad things about the old M16. You know it is swell cause it is made by mattel.

We used the M14 mostly, shark watch and all that if you have divers in the water. I think the Seals still use the M14 for a scoped sniper rifle.

Dad had an old 30 cal carbine, that was a great piece. That thing has a big clip. And then the really old M1 Gerand 30-06. Kicked really hard. We had some armor piercing rounds for that thing. Never let me fire any of the special rounds armor piercing or tracers.

I think Gov should worry most about those big rifles with scopes. Now that is an offensive weapon. All these close in weapons are really intended for a defensive situation.

I think everyone should at least have a shotgun in the house. Edge goes to the defender. Come in and get us.

I don't care about carrying out in public. But if I need my shotgun, I want it always close by. I like the old Mossberg 500. Well, my newest one is like the 500, but has a special coating and short barrel (20) and long magazine (8+1) , they call it a 590. Has a special coating to prevent rust around salt water.