Reader David Brown writes:

I’ve noticed there are many people in the general public and political arena that seem to see a clear distinction between what weapons and magazines are appropriate for law enforcement and what are appropriate for “the rest of us”. The only differences I see are ones that heavily favor the average person over law enforcement and here’s why. Like John Q. Public, a law enforcement officer’s weapons are used for defense of self or others. They’re not intended for offensive use. That being the case, the argument against citizens being entitled to anything short of what LEOs are privy to falls flat for three reasons . . .

1: LEOs frequently patrol with a partner, i.e. immediate backup. From the get-go, firepower and angles of defense are doubled for an officer with a partner. The average Joe is on his own with whatever firearm and ammo he/she has and only one angle of defense. In other words we’re oftentimes at an immediate disadvantage. +1 for us to have firepower equal to LEOs.

2: LEOs have the benefit of a quick radio call that will have every other patrol car in the area smoking tires to get there as fast as possible while we’re left betting everything on the 911 response being timely and hoping a “regular” shooting will bring the same response as an officer under fire. +2 for us to have firepower equal to LEOs.

3: Many times we encounter a higher number of immediate threats in a given situation than a LEO does. We all read the weekly articles about multiple home invaders getting either shot at or shot by a someone defending themselves, their family or their home. The invaders either shuffle off this mortal coil rather quickly or flee the scene. That leaves LEOs in “clean-up” mode when they arrive. We’re the ones on the front line, fending off multiple attackers while waiting for LEOs to get there and back us up. We’re the ultimate first responders. +3 for us to have firepower equal to LEOs.

To be very clear, I’m not in any way trying to bash LEOs. They serve an eminently important role and I’m truly glad for what they do, as fast as they can do it. But, I’m sick and tired of the argument being made that LEOs somehow need all the firepower they want yet somehow the rest of us, on our own and waiting for 911, don’t. You?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

129 COMMENTS

  1. I absolutely agree with this sentiment. However, much of America does not. Until a gun grabber is faced with an imminent threat without an officer strapped to their back, they will never, and I repeat never understand what it is we are talking about. It’s sad, depressing, and unfortunate…but it is the truth.

    • “Until a gun grabber is faced with an imminent threat without an officer strapped to their back, they will never, and I repeat never understand what it is we are talking about.”

      I strongly fear this for my girlfreind. She is not anti-gun but she does not like that I carry all the time, even at home. Her thing is that she grew up in a major ghetto had the tough childhood and a couple of bad marrages. She seems to think that makes her invincible and she deffinatley does not need guns. That coupled with her religious beliefs of, “when its my time to go.” The funny thing is, I know shes afraid. She always references a neighbor being attacked that could have been her. She wants to go to the range, I just need ammo. I hope I can change her mind about guns.

      • Would she stroll back into the ghetto to see if “it’s her time to go”? I doubt it. Does her time come to her, or does she go to it?
        Very common, fuzzy thinking like this avoids confronting the realities of everyday life. But you already know that. Have you taken her shooting?

        She’s in the throes of normalcy bias – because she survived her earlier life, she’ll get through the rest of it too. That’s true – until something ends it. That’s the part she wants to avoid thinking about, because it might force her to change some aspects of her life.

        Talk to her about it. Believe me, I understand the difficulties with people with normalcy bias. See if she’ll go shoot. Make it a day, with things planned before and after.

        • Everything you said is spot on William. She does fear change but to her defense she has stood up to a lot to change and personal growth to make us happen.

          She does want to go to the range and I have a feeling that will be a fun time for her. Unfortunatley they have severley limited their ammo sales, I cant use outside ammo on their guns and I only have a .40 so letting her try a variety is mostly out of the question.

    • Hmmm… well…. according to this Police Chief, officers DO carry their guns ONLY for offensive purposes:

      youtube.com/watch?v=-pN2gzeG0MU

    • I am a LEO. It’s not really a LEO’s place to give advice. If it were, however, my advice would be to tool up like LEOs or even more so. You’re on your own for 5-10 minutes… an hour or more for a lot of rural folk. If it were me, I would want the bad guy to be focused on the three to five rounds I put into him during that timeframe. That’s just me.

      • I understand a lot of LEOs feel his way–but why do their commanding officers, especially urban chiefs of police, seem to have their heads so firmly implanted deep in their large intestine?

      • In Kali, it’s illegal to buy a Gen4 Glock, though its’ been around a few years, LawEnforcement only. My hands are small and the older Gen3 Glocks’ grip is too big which throws off my aim. (Also, my wife inherited a Sig.380 from her Mom, but its’ illegal here in CA.) One of the govt’s little known infringements is to say: “No one needs guns designed for the military (insert law enforcement)” They wish to divide, then oppress.

  2. But, says Bloomberg/Cuomo/Difi/Obama et al., the police take orders from us and you don’t.

    • Bodyguard! Bodyguard!! Bodyguard!!!

      I WANT MY BODYGUARD NOW.

      And DON’T bring me no stinkin’ DOG. BODYGUARD.

  4. I see a distinct difference between what someone in the military needs and what someone in law enforcement needs.

    After that, no distinction. ANY argument you can make for law enforcement applies to civilian ownership and possibly moreso.

    LEOs need 15 round magazines for their handguns to defend against multiple attackers? How does that NOT apply to private ownership? In NY, does that mean civilians somehow have less right to defend themselves than a LEO?

    So on and so forth.

    Like the article said, we don’t have backup, we don’t have radios. We never ever have the luxury of waiting to go in until we’re ready.

    • The 2A is not really about self defense, “security of a free state” and all that. We should be tooled up to mil-spec. LEOs should not.

      • LEOs should be able to carry anything a civilian can have, since being non-military they’re civilians too.

        And no select-fire weapons, since civvies can’t have them without onerous financial burden that should not be approved by the voters for LEOs.

  6. Ostensibly — due to their better training that we keep hearing about — an LEO should need fewer rounds to defend themselves than a civilian.

  7. Not to mention LEOs don’t face anything that the average citizenry do not. Hostage situations like the LA shootout? Who do you think are the hostages? Armed robberies? Who are getting robbed? Etc. Etc. They may face these threats more often, but that doesn’t excuse the exemption from mag cap/weapon bans.

    The argument that the police face threats unlike those of ordinary citizenry is a myth we need to dispel.

  8. Professional law enforcement personnel deal with criminals all the time and they choose to equip themselves with those scary “weapons of war” because they’re effective. Why wouldn’t they be the most appropriate tools for potential vicims?

  9. My favorite quote is when I hear the President or gun grabbers use the phrase:

    “military-style assault weapons designed for the singular purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.”

    It flies in the face of reason since I’m pretty sure nobody believes the job of a police officer should be to “kill as many people as quickly as possible” yet they are comfortable with police having access to these “military style assault weapons” and not the general public. It’s a blatant double standard.

    • Police GOOD!! (Until they break down YOUR door)

      Gun owners BAD!! – WHITE TERRORISTS. RACISTS. CHILD-EATERS. RAPISTS. PEE IN BACK YARD!

      • Wow. That consumed WAY too much time. It took almost FIVE MINUTES to post. Is anyone else experiencing this, or is it a local issue. Nothing else gives me a problem, so I think it’s somewhere between me and TTAG.

        • Its just the number of people on here, i get mis spelled words from cut off. Typical under heavy loads, from high usage! Which is awesome, but a little time consuming. I wish they had a number couter of how many of usare logged in..

  10. If you go back and actually look at the text of individual state’s constitutions incorporating the 2A, many mention that a standing army is anathema to a free state. I would argue that these forces constitute a de facto standing army. Now, one might argue that the police need these tools because the criminals have guns. However, in a free state, the police are required to disarm first. If you have laws that need to be enforced with a .50 BMG in a free state, something is wrong with those laws, or you don’t live in a free state.

  12. Police officers are civilians, therefore they should be required to conform to all laws applicable to civilians.

    • YEP. Shall we start addressing them as “Civilian”, instead of “Officer”? How many think this is a good idea? How about “Civilian Officer”?

  13. I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: LEO faces no threat that citizens don’t, they only risk facing it more often. They don’t operate in a war zone, they operate in the same streets, public spaces, and businesses that we also travel through.

    • I agree whole heartedly, and think that this argument needs to be proclaimed loudly and at very opportunity. Well said.

    • A LEO has the added advantage over the average citizen in that they go into 90% of these situations, particularly all these SWAT raids not only with operational intelligence and planning but with a full team.

      Those two factors alone should be enough to nullify the argument that they deserve more firepower than other civilians due to the fact that they deliberately face these threats and with frequency.

      So yeah, there is not now nor will there ever be an affirmative argument for the continued militarization of our police forces while non-LEO civilians are progressively and determinedly stripped of their rights to self-defense.

    • So as a regular Joe, you find yourself having to apprehend criminals and it’s your job to run TOWARD the sound of gunshots? That’s what is expected of typical cops, not just SWAT guys. If you want to talk SWAT then you get into assaulting and breaching and all that fun stuff. Your argument is very weak if your saying that we face the same risks and threats as cops. You don’t drive around the most dangerous parts of town and interface with criminals as part of your daily routine. No, only cops and criminals have that job description. I think we average Joes should have access to body armor, select fire weapons, etc. (maybe not flash bangs and C4… maybe) because there is no compelling reason not to, but let’s not pretend that LEOs aren’t in any more danger than the rest of us.

      • They are only in more danger by choice. They have no duty ( supreme court has consistently ruled ) to protect any one and do not have to respond if they feel it would endanger them.

        So except when they actively seek danger ( and get paid for it ) they are no more in harms way than anyone else

        Uncle Frank

  14. Absolutely agree with this sentiment – I have no problem with cops having access to patrol carbines, marksman rifles, sniper rifles and the modern full-capacity handguns, all of which should also be availible to all other civilians of age and without mental incapacity or a criminal record.

    Let’s face it, even a full auto M16, while technically a “weapon of war”, isn’t really much on its own. You don’t go to war with just 100,00 M-16s – you go to war with M-16s, light, medium and heavy MGs. grenade launches, missile launchers, mortars and recoilless rifles. And that’s just small-unit infantry., never mind tube and rocket arty, armor, choppers, jet fighters, satellite recon, ballistic defense missiles, and all the other elements of a modern military.

    • “Criminal record”. This needs to be aired out. Shall we debar shoplifters the use of arms? How about forgers and bad-check writers?

      Should ANY criminal conviction debar one the use of arms legally?

      • How about felony, or a misdemeanor that involved violence or the use of a gun to commit another crime (i.e. not some sort of storage or technical BS).

        I don’t know how it works here in the US, but back home, after a certain number of years you could apply for an administrative pardon for less serious offences as long as you had completed all the terms of your sentence and had no further run-ins with the law for a period of time. It would allow you to answer “no” if asked if you had a criminal record, and allow you to be bonded and get a firearms permit. I would support that as well so that your rights could be restored at some point, though it should be a decent amount of time.

        As to forgers – why not? It would depend on the severity of the offense, but it goes to character and being a crook has consequences.

        • How about this, when you are released from jail you gain all your citizen rights back, if people have issue with that then why is the person being released from jail? Either they are a fully functioning member of society and have earned their rights back or they are not and should not be functioning in society

        • If a felon has served their full sentence, all their rights should be restored.

          Whether sentences are long enough is another question, but the principle stands.

          • Yeah, I agree. If the person is too dangerous to have a gun then he should be in prison or on parole. However, the restoration of firearms rights is a cash cow for lawyers so don’t expect it to change.

            Oh, do you know who pushed the prohibition of felons having firearms on the state level before it became federal law? The NRA! Yes, the NRA. In the past felons could serve their sentence and then get a gun and become a lawyer like the serial killer John Wesley Hardin. The NRA wanted to put a stop to the gun part anyway.

        • Well, unless you are such a douche that you get no time off for good behaviour, early release, etc., then your “sentence” usually ends years after you leave the pokey.

          And sorry, but if you used a gun to rob a store, then no, you shouldn’t get your gun rights restored for a very long time if ever. As a responsible, law-abiding firearms owner, I don’t want to be associated with a bunch of felons, and besides that sort of absolutism is one of our biggest PR hurdles.

        • I believe that the purpose of correctional facilities is to eliminate or reduce recidivism among convicted criminals. Ostracizing and continuing to further alienate these individuals even after they’ve “served their time” seems like a significant contributing factor to high recidivism rates.
          So I agree with Nick that when a person convicted of a crime is let free from prison then all of their civil rights should be restored unconditionally.

          I don’t see why “parole” is something that we even allow to happen. Like I said it’s just another way of alienating the person from normal society after they have “paid their debt” what purpose does parole really serve other than further persecution?

    • I agree with Anon. The US military brings a whole lot more than M16’s to a war – regardless of whether or not they should be fighting in the first place.

  15. Why shouldn’t we tool up like LEO’s you ask?

    Because we want out Eotechs mounted forward not backward!

  16. I would add point 4:

    Q. Who are LEOs defending themselves against?
    A. The same people we are.

    LEOs are civilians, so they aren’t defending against a military force, they are defending against criminals. So are we. Anything a LEO needs to defend against the weapons and tactics of a criminal, we also need because we are defending against the exact same people. Add to this the fact that ordinary citizens are the true first responders, and the question answers itself.

  17. As an LEO and an avid supporter of the second amendment it is important that I address this articical.
    1. Most LEO’s across the county do not ride with a partner, most of the time officers ride or walk a beat sort of speak by themselves with assistance from other officer more than just a radio call away. When an officer is working you the public know who he is by his uniform or vehicle. He is most of the time at a tactical disadvantage.

    2. Quick response from a radio call, it is clear you sir are watching to much TV. Officers back up are most of the time more than just a moment away. I sir, work for a county Sheriff’s office and have driven over an hour to back up officers. Just moments away no that dog don’t hunt. Lets say your back up is two minutes away. Well two minutes is a life time when your fighting for your life. Just like the public is fighting after a 911 call. That is no different for the officers.
    3. I challenge u to do a ride along with an LEO. And see what’s its like to stop a car full of bad guys on a dark road. In the middle of no where, or confronting several individuals on a dark corner. You need to walk in the shoes of your police officer before you deminish their service to you. You can say your intent is not to insult but to prove a point for equal rights when it comes to the second amendment, gun laws and rights, what you don’t realize is that we are fighting every day for you. Over 150 officers died last year to defend your freedoms last year. That does not even include all of our military past present and future who are in harms way. God Bless this great Country and I will fight so you can always voice your opinion.

    • Most of the officers who die in the line of duty do so because of accidents — auto crashes, falls, motorcycle crashes, struck by vehicles etc. In other words, they die from exactly the same causes as non-LEOs.

      As far as danger is concerned, fisherman, roofers, taxi drivers, steelworkers and many others all have more dangerous occupations than LEOs. Those people die to feed us, take us where we need to go, build the homes where we live and the buildings where we work. And to my knowledge, none of them have ever tried to violate anyone’s 4th Amendment rights.

      • +1 to Ralph.

        H-n-H, if I may, has there ever been an instance in your career while you patrolled by yourself where you actually responded without back up to a situation where the suspect targeted you for elimination because of the deterrence you represent? Or would it be fair to say that in 90% or greater cases on the job your uniform served the purpose of deterrence to those around you rather than the unintended purpose of causing you to be targeted for elimination in order to facilitate the commision of a crime?

        • That has only happened once in 23 years that I was targeted because of what I represented. And yes that too is a fair assumption that the presence of law enforcement is a great deterrence to crime.

      • Ralph please review http://www.odmp.org. And yes there are a percentage of officers killed by other means other by acts of violence, but does that mean less when that officer is killed. The death of a police officer no matter how it happens impact communities reguard less of the reason. And just to make it clear to everyone I believe that everyone should have the right to carry and protect themselves. But again I challenge everyone to do a ride along with the local law enforcement and see if that does not change ones perspective. God Bless America

        • +1 everyone should take a look at odmp.org you’ll quickly see that cops die from violence being used against them far more often than anything else. Including heart disease and car accidents, which are by far the most prevalent killers of civilians.

    • I take it you didn’t really read the whole thing.

      No one is disparaging cops, in fact the entire last paragraph gushes over them, and no one is saying we should take guns from police. What’s being said is that civvies should have access to the same guns cops do because we face the same threats. You might face them more often, but they’re the same threats.

      Regarding the slow response time; 1st, the average response time for Columbus PD to a 10-3 (Officer in distress) is something like 38 seconds. And it’s not even a radio call. You mash a button on your walkie and a couple dozen cops are smokin rubber to come fvck somethin up. I don’t get the same response if/when someone breaks into my house or mugs me in the parking lot at work.

      You work in the boonies and your backup’s a day away? Yea that sucks. You know who else has to deal with that? Every single resident who lives out there and might have to call the police and wait on that help.

      You encounter a group of guys in a car at night out in the sticks or a group of unsavory characters on a sidewalk corner? Yea, that’s tense. You know who else has to deal with that? Every single person who’s also driving or walking down that road or who’s walking down that sidewalk or lives in the area.

      No one is saying that you don’t face threats or that you don’t need defending. What’s being argued is that you aren’t the only one who needs defending.

      ETA: Ok, maybe some people are disparaging cops. But the OP isn’t.

    • And how are any of those three points more important for LEOs than civilians?
      1. Civilians are still alone, or even worse travel with family and friends that are not armed that they must protect.
      2. Two minutes is a lifetime to fight for your life and civilians don’t have an extra two-ten minutes to dial 911, wait for an operator, explain the situation and describe themselves (so they don’t get shot as a “gunman”) while under fire. The last time I called my PD to report a suspicious person it took seven minutes to get to the operator. LEOs have a neat two-way radio that instantly puts them in contact with the rest of the department with the push of a button.
      3. What about a civilian being stopped by a car full of bad guys?

      Even with equal equipment civilians are at a disadvantage because LEOs have additional training (including “squad” tactics), active support, instant communication, can prepare for a situation, and have a full arsenal to use. “First responders” are not always there first and can take the time to grab a shotgun or rifle and put on a vest full of plates. Civilians that are in the middle of the situation and the reason for the call can’t.

      Now what about wanting equality is an insult again? Your comment doesn’t really do much but further the opposite point.

      • Nowhere did H n H dispute that we should have access to the same gear as the 5-0.

        He just took issue with some of the [alleged] advantages that cops havem as cited by the author of the post. Part of it is the difference between policing a rural area and being NYPD in Manhattan.

        He is correct that a lot of things are two-edged. For instance, uniformed cops don’t have to worry about concealed carry, so they can carry full-sized handguns in easy to reach holsters – but they are also the first target for the bad guys.

        • Once again I’m raising this point, Anon, outside of Christopher Dorner when was the last time you read a credible report of a police officer being targeted for elimination prior to a crime actually taking place?

          Most police who are killed in the “line of duty” die in accidental deaths. Most police that are killed by gunfire are killed by fleeing or cornered suspects.

          This isn’t DieHard or Olympus Down it’s real life and in real life nobody in America goes out to rob a convience store or a fast food restaurant and proceeds to kill the cop they see sitting there so that they can commit their crime, they drive to the next target of opportunity.

          Like the OP I’m not arguing that Police shouldn’t have good weapons and gear I’m arguing that they shouldn’t have anything that I’m not legally allowed to have because their job is not in any way inherently more dangerous than just going about your day to day business here in America.

          It really isn’t. How many times have you watched an episode of “COPS” where the cops get shot at? Or any of the other shows like it, the answer is none. Because the stupid, frustrating, mild danger of a boo-boo that you get to watch on those shows is the day-to-day life of 99% of police officers in this country 99% of the time.

          Yeah the other 1% is Sandy Hook and the Watts Riots and Christopher Dorner. But for every non-LEO in America that’s just as likely to happen to them.

  18. I agree but there are some cases where special weapons are needed against humans by LEOs that the every day citizen does not need. They come into play in an offensive situation where a person is barracaded in a building or something like that. In that case possible weapons needed are tear gas or similar in a grenade launcher, flash bang grenades and sniper rifles.

    My hunting rifles work perfectly well as sniper rifles and no one is suggesting we take them away although occasionally you hear arguments against 50 BMG rifles. I don’t think a private citizen needs the grenade launcher, tear gas or flash bang grenades, unless of course the tyrannical government thing ever comes true.

    • I still can’t think of a need for LEO’s to have fully automatic or select fire weapons. Every LEO I have heard discuss this says that the need is not there and the potential liability is too high.

      • Either triple burst or trigger modulation to that effect is perfectly suitable for close range shooting. I think the all too common lack of marksmanship is the liability issue.

        Also, the 2nd amendment read objectively in any manner would lead one to conclude that all citizens should be equal to the soldier, and cops being civilian citizens first and foremost are no exception. The issue is the dismal failure of the legislature and courts to uphold equal protection under the law.

    • “My hunting rifles work perfectly well as sniper rifles. . .no one is suggesting we take them away.”

      Are you sure about that? Ms. Feinstein’s proposal, supported by the Democratic Party in general:

      . . .”A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
      (i) a folding or telescoping stock,
      (ii) a threaded barrel,
      (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
      below),
      (iv) a forward grip; OR a barrel shroud.
      Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
      10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles). ”

      Note that this is the basic rifle with ONE of the listed items, not all.

      Given this, a Remington 750 (semi-auto, detachable magazine, a ‘pistol grip’ stock) with a threaded muzzle for a muzzle brake. . .

      You forget, this is only the ‘End of the Beginning’ for gun-control fanatics; It would take just one repeat of the Texas Tower incident (done with a bolt-action rifle) to add bolt-action ‘sniper rifles’ to this list. Rest assured, your hunting rifles are on somebody ELSE’s list of Things To Ban.

  19. Mr. Brown is on point. In addition, it seems as if the nation has forgotten that LEOs are civilians. That being the case, it undercuts the idea espoused by politicians that somehow LEOs should have access to instruments which they claim should be banned from civilian use, in particular those items described by the powers that be as “weapons of war”.

  20. I agree for the most part. We face the same threats that a regular police officer faces.

    There are, however, highly specialized law enforcement teams that face things we do not. These situations range from a hostage rescue that actually requires a dynamic, rapid assault (remember that kid in Alabama that was held in a bunker for about a week?) to extreme cases like terrorist have a nuclear bomb and HRT and a Nest team have to fast rope from a helicopter, neutralize the terrorists, and deactivate the bomb before a city is wiped out.

    We don’t actually need stuff like det cord or flash bangs, but there are rare instances when the police do. The problem with police militarization is the gross overuse by the wannabes.

    • And don’t forget they face a LOT of dangerous choir practices. I’m referring to a recent incident when a SWAT team burst into the wrong apartment. Granny was leading the kids in a choir practice. They pointed guns at everyone and yelled, “this is what happens when your Granny sells crack!”

      Then they shot the family dog dead – which was locked in the basement.

    • PDs don’t need det cord and flash bangs either. When people get hungry and thirsty they lay down arms and come out. That’s been true for over 10,000 years. If the Mesopotamians could figure that out, the local PD can, too.

  21. Another related talking point that anti-gun folks will use is “You don’t need a gun, because you can just use a taser or a pepper spray” while ignoring the fact most law enforcement agencies train their cadets to use less-than lethal option in combination with lethal force backup readily at hand, because many less-than-lethal options do not reliably stop a determined attacker.

  22. I have to agree with you. As a fireman, I hav bin there to respond, and your right the first responders are the people there at the scene when the shit hits the fan. Just about 85% of the time we {the fire and police depts} show up afterwards for what we use to call MOP UP. You all get the meaning…police have there own word..tag and bag..and secure the scene. All means about the same, responding to an event in time afterward, after the shooting, after the car wreck and so on. People that are there as it unfolds make the most of what they can do, with what the have, and what training they have gone threw. So it would make sense to have paramedic trained tachers with ample medical equipment to treat any injury, from a broken arm to a gunshot wound. And for teachers to carry firearms with propper training. Ive seen a well trained school here in Fl, with a school resource officer, and trained nurse with ER training opperate like a well oiled machine. Example..Teacher buzzs the office, one of her students just started having a siesure, the nurse immediatly gives instructions so the student doesnt harm themselfs. Then she {the er nurse calls the school officer and informs him EMS is needed at such room for a seisure } the nurse grabbs the students med file and first aide kit and runs to the room. The officer radios dispatch which can flip over to FIRE EMS band and get us rolling in under 4 mins. When we arrive on scene, she’s already got the student safe, and away from harm, plus the on duty police officer at the school is there to remove the other students to a safe place to keep confusion down, and not make the event so dramatic for both the patient and the kids. We show up start meds nboard, load and transport without even interuptingthe other classes going on right next door. Classey opperation that could be put into every school in this nation With out to much cost or effort. Now picture the worst, a student or someone on school grounds with an firearm. The teacher alerts the school resource officer, he radios OFFICER NEEDS ASSISTANCE, POSSIBLE ACTIVE SHOOTER, RQUESTING ALL AVAILIBLE UNITS AND SWAT AND EMS ON SCENE!!! Hes on scene in two mins witha hole shit load of police not far behind, with an ER trained nurse on hand near by, waiting for him to say, all clear need you at room number blank. Mucbetter system, MUCH BETTR OUTCOME!!!

  23. LEOs need superior fire power because they walk into their station, and magically teleport to Afghanistan… oh wait, they don’t. +4

  24. 4. LEO’s are not usualy the ones being attacked. In most situations, the police are approaching the scene in response and as they close, can make tactical desisions(concealment/Cover, bring long gun, wait for backup) reducing their risk. The original victim is the focus of the perp until cops arrive. The perp chooses the attack strategy thus limiting victim response options. The police then use that same strategy on the criminal. Every second the take to “secure” the scene are seconds that the victim is still exposed to the threat. Officer saftey first, then victim, that is LE philosophy. The victim must respond to the criminal on his timetable, the police respond on their own timetable. There is no condemnation of police for this reality, they are wise to take time to access. The victim is not afforded that time nor tactical options luxury, so please allow the citizen some equipment options.
    Like more than 10 rounds.

  25. The law enforcement arms race will not end well. Police become better armed then the public becomes better armed and the cycle continues. Eventually police gain similar capabilities as our infantry. We may be there already.

    Was our civilian law enforcement intended to become a homeland military force? If the answer is no, then the “arms race” must end.

    Police on patrol should be in uniform wearing concealed body armor, not in full riot gear. Police are there to protect and serve the public. They are not masters overseeing their slaves.

    Until we demand that Police view the general population as friend and not foe, the arms race will continue until the distinction between our military and our police disappears.

    • +1000. The tac gear is there to INTIMIDATE, and make you feel like a SUBJECT, rather than a citizen on a par with them.

      It has NO PLACE in a free state. IT HAS TO GO, the sooner the better.

      But I have an uneasy feeling it will take nothing short of a revolution to change it.

    • Eventually Ted?

      Let me assure you the only thing our infantry has that police lack is close-air-support.

      MRAP’s HMWVV’s, Ballistic Vests, “Patrol Rifles,” all kinds of tacti-cool web gear and handy supportive ordnance like breaching charges, flash-bangs, tear gas and the like? The police in this country already have that stuff and more. If you doubt that in major urban centers the riot or SWAT divisions have access to belt-fed squad-automatic-weapons then you’re deluding yourself.

      Yup the only thing they’re lacking is CAS. Maybe artillery, but artillery doesn’t have a whole lot of use against a de-centralized and networked enemy anyway and plus CAS is better because pilots can think on approach while bombs just fall where they may.

      • Yeah, LEOs are a bit behind a modern infantry force. No SAWs, LAWs or Frag grenades for one thing. Not to mention mortars or TOW missiles, etc. One thing LEOs have that Mil can’t use is modern expanding ammunition. That’s huge, especially in handguns and SMGs.

      • They don’t usually have crew-served or anti-armor weapons. They don’t have anti-air weapons. And they don’t have offensive grenades.

        I’m against police militarization, but let’s keep in in perspective.

  26. You SHOULD gear up like the police. I am a police officer, and I really dislike the idea of me and my team being somehow more special than the people we serve. I want to keep you safe and take care of business, but when something happens to you, you are already there. I’m not. I’ll be a few minutes. That may or may not be good enough, depending on the situation. I’d much rather interview you when I get there and figure out if you did the right thing than help the coroner scoop you into a body bag.

    There, I said it. I’m a cop, and I love citizens who are as prepared for life as I am. Armed, aware of their surroundings, with a solid plan for when things go south and a good first aid kit (and the skill to use it) nearby.

    • THANK YOU, Citizen Officer!!! I wish more were like you. I wish ALL were like you. But finding a policeman like you is like trying to find a good doctor. There are gems, but the chances of finding one are slim indeed.

    • Thank you officer, I applaud you for your candor, and wish you the best. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that you are one of the few that sticks out and apart from the typical way of thinking of many LEO’s, hence we understand why you Really Want to Keep it Private. Molon Labe…..

    • This is an example of a LEO that deserves respect instead of demanding it because of the position. Unfortunately I’ve met (under good circumstances) far too many officers that wanted the badge and the gun for respect because they seemingly couldn’t get it on their own.

      This is the attitude we need, but most PDs would never use that message because they need the people to live in fear, and thus have a great divide between LEOs and the rest of us, in order to get more funding. The idea of that divide is cyclical logic as well. “We are different because we can get gear you can’t”. “Why can you only get that gear”? “Because we’re different”. “Why are you different”? “Because we can get gear you can’t”.

      • Trust me, there are few more skeptical of government power than I am. And I work for the government.

        I take my mission very seriously, but I feel strongly that I am a part of my community, not apart from my community. I also try hard to make my community feel the same about me. It’s not that I don’t sometimes tick people off. No one wants to get a ticket or go to jail. I recognize that what is good for the community is not always good for the individual, especially the one who is going to jail. But I also recognize that the community is but a collection of individuals, so if what I do is really not good for many individuals, it is not good for the community, either.

        How does this relate to guns and the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States? In all kinds of ways. I do what I do full-time, but I feel that all of us have not only the right, but the duty to take care of our community. We need to keep order by behaving in an orderly fashion, but also by being prepared for when someone doesn’t. I’ll be there to help. That’s what you pay me for. But things will work out better for everyone if you are prepared. The government should encourage and help you in preparing, not prevent you from doing so. A government which has such great contempt for citizens that it does not trust them with simple things like equipment it relies on itself needs to do some serious soul-searching. If they are supposed to be our representatives, how can they ever see us as a problem? And if they do not represent (and resemble) us and our concerns, who the heck are they? And what are they doing? And when will they stop?

        • Yes! Although uncommon in my experience, you’re attitude and approach to the job of law enforcement is, indeed, commendable! I hope the passing years, and the trauma you’re sure to witness don’t take that, ‘spark of altruism’ away from you. Best of luck!

    • You, Sir, are my hero!!
      There’s precious little I won’t do for you and LEO’s just like you!

      • Reaaaaallly? Ok, I want a big, fat juicy steak (organic, grass fed), some garlic mashed potatoes, and something green, so I can call it a healthy meal. And a beer.

        Thanks, man!

        😉

  27. Did you know that there are not any rules for the size of a tennis racket?
    What we see is that there is an optimal size that has evolved to be most effective in most play situations.
    Cops respond to all sorts of situations and thus can carry in their sqaud, specialized “rackets”. In CCW, we have to choose a best all around “racket” because we can be put into a wide range of scenarios and have to be carrying our solution, hidden. A cop has his belt, and his squad to carry many tools and good for him.
    As implied in my earlier post, CCW’ers find ourselves surrounded by a situation, while cops approach from the outside and choose from the tools that their belt and squad is designed to carry.
    Don’t limit us further with arbitrary laws, personal carry is limiting enough!

  28. The average cop wears body armor, the average Joe does not.
    +4 for us being equipped just as well as police.

    The average gun owner shoots more in 1 year than an average cop does.
    +5 for us being equipped just as well as police.

      • I am the average gun owner, and the last guy who gave me a ticket is the average cop. 🙂

        On a serious note, I bet that’s how most people see it.

  29. If anything, this should be an argument that the civvies need MORE firepower than the cops. Cops have body armor, radios and backup. We have 911. Maybe. IF we can get to a phone.

  30. Weapons of war have no place in police forces either. No one needs 30 rounds to shoot your dog.

  31. Generally, I believe the police should have the same limits on their equipment as the civilian population.

    That said, police officers can be targets for criminals. And if a criminal decides to target a police officer, they are going go for maximum violence of action. The reality is the threat faced by an officer on patrol is very different from the threat faced by someone out of uniform. I think they’re much less likely to be attacked, but if they are it’s going to be with what the assailant thinks is overwhelming force. I wouldn’t want to be rolling around East St Louis in shirtsleeves with only a pistol. I wouldn’t expect them to either. I have the luxury of just not going into “the hood”, they don’t. That said, they also don’t need to gear up for a patrol in Baghdad to make a round of the ‘burbs, the local mall or the entertainment district, which are all places I’ve seen “tacticool” SWAT jockeys geared up in Level 3A body armor with helmet and carbine.

    A sidearm and level 2 body armor should be sufficient for low threat environments. A carbine and level 3 body armor for high threat environments. And what constitutes “high threat” needs to be a matter of defined policy.

    The use of tear gas and flash bangs is absurd. Grenades shouldn’t be deployed without sufficient reason (an armed and barricaded suspect). This nonsense about initiating a no knock raid with a grenade needs to stop. Even in the military you don’t get to chuck a grenade into a room without knowing who is in there. And you don’t use pyrotechnic devices on buildings where civilians are present. There is no need for the police to be using “burners”.

    Forfeiture and the war on drugs has led to some ridiculous overspending. In Missouri, the state police all drive Dodge Chargers. Even some local PDs have Chargers and SUVs. As well as MRAPs (Jackson County Sheriff). If we reign the spending in and change forfeiture laws so that police departments aren’t operating like for profit businesses, they won’t have the money to waste on all that “tacticool” gear.

    • Something else you might want to consider:

      If you’re rolling around in your threat level 3 body armor with your carbine, a bad guy might be inclined to simply pop you over the head and take your stuff. A big advantage to concealed carry is the “concealed” part.

      And if they decide to do that – see my above point about the level of violence they are going to exert to take your stuff.

    • “That said, police officers can be targets for criminals. And if a criminal decides to target a police officer, they are going go for maximum violence of action. The reality is the threat faced by an officer on patrol is very different from the threat faced by someone out of uniform.”
      —-
      Not really. I’ve seen civilians assaulted much more horrifically than a cop. It’s up to the criminal on how much violence they want to use.

      That being said, I’ve seen police assault civilians more horrifically than some criminals.

  33. I would never tool up like a LEO. Why would I want to walk around looking like an imperial stormtrooper in a Star Wars movie.

    • Really? The sources I look at show police officer as at or near the top 10 most dangerous jobs.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2010-3?op=1

      Also, those with MORE dangerous jobs than me are given more latitude to talk a little smack. By reckoning, a whole lot of TTAG posters work in an air conditioned-office and tell me that my job isn’t dangerous. I can honestly say that I don’t much care for that opinion. In the last two weeks, I pulled a felony hit and run suspect out of the LA river, got in a vehicle pursuit, helped my partner arrest a woman who stole a car, and chased down a suspect on foot with a no bail warrant. I also helped my local PD make an arrest while off duty.

      No offense, but my danger resume blows office workers and email commandos out of the water.

      • Accur81 ,

        Well you found a site showing cops at #10 from 2008. It is not the average. Here is a recent list and police officers do not even make it to the top 10:

        http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/09/24/americas-10-most-dangerous-jobs/#photo-1

        And yes, I do resent you assuming I work in an aircondtioned office since the boat I work on doesn’t even have air conditioning. We don’t need air conditioning in Alaska on the edge of the ice pack. Yeah, my job is #1 even on your list. So I guess that gives me permission in your words to “talk a little smack.”

        • Very well, then. Respect.

          If I make it to Alaska, and I plan to in the next year or so, I’ll take my .45-70 XLR, .460 Smith, and a Glock .40. I support your right to carry whatever I do, as well as an AR of your choice, or whatever else you wish.

  35. The Peace Officer faces the low level threat lots more often because he is required to go clean up other folks problems. He should be trained and equipped to deal with commonly expected problems.

    Backup is often problematical in the rural/small cities jurisdictions. I have first hand experience in this.

    I dont see the need for SWAT equipment for each officer, but i agree some is needed for specialized and rare uses. (current grants have pushed that level down i fear)

    I agree that all citizens should be allowed to be equally equipped as any patrol officer.

    I am.

  36. Let’s also remember that the average DGU’r probably isn’t wearing a ballistic vest when (s)he’s just knocking around the house or out do whatever it is they do. Most LEOs, while on duty, are.

    Obviously, the implication here is that there may well be situations where a DGU’r can’t afford to wait for the bad guy to shoot first because (s)he can’t take the chance that “2nd place” means “1st loser”; in this regard, LEOs have more leeway in their rules of engagement.

  37. To be clear:

    Cops carry guns to protect THEMSELVES. They do not carry guns to protect the public.

    • I don’t think that is either accurate or fair.

      I think most (95+%) of police officers would step between a civilian and harm. If they were there.

      It’s the “if they were there part” where we have room to discuss.

  38. I own the exact same AR-15 issued to my hometown police department SRT members. Should you, shouldn’t you? Hell, I already did. I’m of the mindset that I’d rather have it, and not need it, than need it, and not have it. Not to mention the “behind every blade of grass” concept for national defense just makes a lot of sense to me. Who is dumb enough to invade a nation where every citizen is capable of being armed comparable to an infantry rifleman? That, ladies and gentleman, is a tree even Kim Jong-un wouldn’t dare climb.

  39. No mystery here, I support the rank and file cops. Their bosses, not so much. As for citizens tooling up equal to the cops. Yes. We’re all citizens under the same roof. Anything available to the local cop shop should be available at the wal mart.

    • Good point. Notice that every time President Obama or Vice President Biden mention gun control and have police officers with them for a photo op, they say that police organizations support gun control. That’s not the same as saying police officers support gun control. We don’t.

      • Police organizations support gun control in the name of force protection.

        Police forces have the same problem with politicians in uniform the military does.

        This is why in the unlikely event of actual civil conflict, the police and the military will probably split along the lines of those who follow orders and those who honor their oath.

  40. We should not “tool up” like LEOs.

    We should arm ourselves better, in every way.

    Why, because it is our Civic Duty not only for our own benefit but for our fellow Americans.

  42. On the NY PD shooting bystanders…………And the NYPD wants .50 cals. Then they can shoot people for blocks around with one shot!

  43. We should not “tool up” like the PoPo, and here’s why:

    1. It’s hot. Nasty, sweaty, slimy, sticky hot. Makes walking around town a miserable experience. Body armor goes in the “in case of zombies with guns” pile.

    2. It’s heavy. The tacticool vest that holds 10 m4 mags and a genuine IFAK (that you haven’t ever looked in) goes in the “in case of zombies” pile.

    4. It’s visible. Concealed carry means that out of every ten citizens in that 7-11, one is probably armed. This is what deterrence is all about. Add some random clothes to the “in case of zombies” pile, effective camoflage in a typical bachelor flat and nobody will look under them. DO wash the clothes, don’t want to fight zombies smelling like a gym.

    5. It’s expensive. I can’t afford my own MRAP; I can’t even afford gas for the civic half the time. That means super expensive high tech widgets go on the “pick it up when you need it” list.

    Why should cops get to have all the fun? I have an effective fighting kit in the ready room waiting for zombies or whatever. I also have just enough gun to buy me time to run that walks around with me. Yes, I just said my gun walks around, that is what I get for trying to write coherently at 3 am.

  44. We, being the first responders should definitely have select fire weapons. That is to defend against the tyrannical oppressive Fedzilla intent on our demise. That is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. “Keep” I own it and you can’t have it or limit it. “Bear” I have it right here on me and its loaded to the max. “Not be infringed” To not limit in any way. You see how its been infringed from its orginal intent. We need to be able to compete with the armed troops of the DHS and that means everything they have at least.

Comments are closed.