Atlanta PD looks at going full auto

[Katya Mullethov]

Why wouldnt they want to train with subguns ? They ARE incredibly -fun- to run , when someone else is buying the ammo .

//////

ATLANTA - Atlanta police officials are testing assault rifles in an effort to match the firepower officers are seeing in the street. Police officials said the automatic weapons can be used safely.

Only a specialized unit like the SWAT team is trained and authorized to carry special weapons.
Atlanta wants to extend the policy to the other officers. Soon a recommendation will be forwarded to the chief .

Many officers complain that should they be faced with a mass shooting -- such as a school hostage scenario -- they don't want to be outgunned.

/////
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Atlanta_Police_Testing_Assault_Rifles_080309

[eqfan592]

1. Are they really going up against fully automatic...

...firearms on the streets? I'd check the link but it doesn't seem to work for me for some reason at work (yet I never have any problems here :P ).

[iverglas]

2. I don't think anybody said they were

From the OP:

Many officers complain that should they be faced with a mass shooting -- such as a school hostage scenario -- they don't want to be outgunned.

From the article:

It is unlikely a target could dodge an assault weapon, especially when it is discharged with full automatic capacity.

They don't want to be unable to stop the shooting someone else may be engaging in.

[X_Digger]

7. From the video, looks like 'target could dodge' ..

refers to those the cops would be shooting at (the article appears to be a mediocre transcription of the video).

[Recursion]

8. But no assault weapon has full automatic capacity

I'm not sure what the author is trying to say.

[iverglas]

10. "I'm not sure what the author is trying to say."

Well, that makes two of us.

I have no clue what you're trying to say.

[Recursion]

13. I was pointing out that there is no such thing as an fully-automatic assault weapon

So I'm curious what the writer was getting at.

[iverglas]

16. really

You might want to note the use of the term "assault rifle" in the first sentence.

ATLANTA - Atlanta police officials are testing assault rifles in an effort to match the firepower officers are seeing in the street.

Police officials said the automatic weapons can be used safely.

What a tired old game it is.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. The article actually uses the term correctly for once.

Which may be the source of confusion.

Being select fire, they are assault rifles. They are not assault weapons. None of them would be found under the 1994 AWB, which specifies (along with various state laws since then) what an assault weapon is.

Edit: Welp. The video shows an MP5, which is a sub machine gun, not an assault rifle, but that doesn't mean they weren't also testing an M16 (thought I saw someone loading a magazine with .223) or other actual assault rifles.

They seem overconfident in the non-over-penetrating nature of hollowpoints. Glaser Safety rounds would be better. Hollow-point is better than FMJ Ball, but can easily over-penetrate as well.

[ArcticFox]

76. What?

I've always been under the impression that "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" were used rather interchangeably. I guess you could call some grenades "assault weapons" if you wanted to say that "assault weapon" is a broader term. In any case, there are numerous fully-automatic assault rifles/assault weapons. The M-16, AK-47 and AK-74 all come to mind pretty quickly. So, what do you mean that there is no such thing as a fully-automatic assault weapon?

[ManiacJoe]

77. See post #67.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. That's the problem.

The terms are 'used' casually, interchangably, by the media and other sources. Assault Rifle has a specific meaning. Like Machine Gun, or Sub Machine Gun, or Sniper Rifle, or Battle Rifle, Assault Rifle is a specific military term. It belongs to the weapons between a Sub Machine Gun, and a Battle Rifle, and will feature the ability to fire in full auto or burst.

Assault Weapons are a specific legal terminology, spelled out in the 1994 AWB, and since then, in certain state laws, such as California.

A grenade isn't an Assault Weapon, by definition, it's classified as a 'Destructive Device'. The restrictions on them are incredibly tight. In casual conversation, a sharp stick could qualify as an 'assault weapon', but when discussing firearms, it's beneficial to use the specific military or legal terms. At the very least, accuracy ends the whole 'MAGAZINE! CLIP!' argument.

[yost69]

51. M-16 , M-10 ? two off the top of my head.

What about the select fire ak? I really don't think that they will be going to the local gun shop to pick up the full autos. Full autos are available to the right people.

[X_Digger]

53. I think he's referring to 'assault weapon' vs 'assault rifle'..

It's a distinction not followed even by all us gunnies, but has been intentionally muddied by the likes of the VPC, with inadvertent help from the media.

[Recursion]

54. No select fire weapon is an assault weapon.

Assault weapons are (were; I guess there's no federal definition of them now) semi-automatic.

[yost69]

55. A genuine assault weapon,

as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.

That is an assault weapon to me. Am I wrong?

[X_Digger]

56. We had a decade of the definition..

.. of 'assault weapon' being semi-automatic per the '94 AWB. It stuck in many minds, right or wrong.

[yost69]

60. Guess that is where everything got all screwed up

[ManiacJoe]

57. You are thinking of an assault rifle, not an "assault weapon".

An "assault weapon" is just a semi-auto carbine that lookes like an assault rifle, under the most common definitions.

[yost69]

61. so assault weapon and assault rifle are not the same category?

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Correct.

Assault weapon is a legal term, coined by Congress and various state legislatures regarding the features of certain weapons, such as a detachable magazine, pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet lug, and the end of the barrel being threaded.

Assault Rifle is a military term, denoting a select-fire weapon (full auto or burst) of intermediate caliber between a sub machine gun, and a battle rifle.


No Assault Rifles were covered in the Assault Weapon ban. All Assault Rifles have been tightly regulated since 1934, and no new Assault Rifles have been available for manufacture and sale in the US (or import) since 1986.


An M-16 is an Assault Rifle, select fire, .223 caliber.
An AR-15 is nearly identical, but lacks the select fire feature. It has been classified as an Assault Weapon by various laws, but the military would never use it as an Assault Rifle, because it lacks the capability.

[yost69]

70. That is quite ironic..

That the government would want to ban assault weapons but exclude assault rifles. Again I guess that is how screwed up the government is in this country.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Well, assault rifles are effectively banned.

The only ones that exist in legal civilian ownership were made prior to 1986, are registered with the BAFE, required a full background check, not a NICS check, a $200 tax stamp, periodic inspection by the BATFE, and since there are a limited number, and that number gets smaller every year, they command prices in the range of $10,000-$30,000 and up.

There are very, very few, and will be no more. Not unless a couple key pieces of legislation are repealed, and despite claims that 'gun nuts want zero regulation', there is little call to undo the 1934 National Firearms Act, or the 1986 FOPA or whatever it was called.

[Recursion]

78. Assault rifles have been effectively banned since the 1930's.

Not to put too fine a point on it, you were lied to about what the Assault Weapons Ban did, and those of us who opposed it were not crazy.

[high_and_mighty]

14. "testing assault rifles in an effort to match the firepower"

I believe the first reply was based on that line in the article. If the Atlanta police are trying to match what they are seeing in the streets with full auto that would suggest they have run into some fully automatic weapons.

Thats what I thought when I read "match..."

[iverglas]

17. "I believe the first reply was based on that line in the article."

I believe the first reply was an example of the intentional obtuseness seen so often in these parts.

I'm pretty much always right about these things.

[rd_kent]

71. "I'm pretty much always right about these things" - Wow, iver, youre quite full of yourself!

[eqfan592]

19. Indeed it is.

They hinted at "automatic assault rifles" as an attempt to gain parity with what they were facing on the streets, hence my question of if they were actually facing fully automatic weapons on the streets.

[PavePusher]

24. Uh, first sentance?

"Atlanta police officials are testing assault rifles in an effort to match the firepower officers are seeing in the street."

Seems to imply that they are facing more than semi-auto weapons... which I doubt. It just might make the news.

[benEzra]

32. If that is the department's rationale, as opposed to the reporter's take on it,

then someone at the department needs to have his/her head examined.

The weapon in the video is a PISTOL CALIBER SUBMACHINEGUN, not an "assault rifle." That is an abysmally poor choice for making precise shots when hostages/bystanders are present (the "school hostage scenario").

And as to "dodging", the last time I checked, The Matrix is a work of fiction; if an offender can "dodge" a small bullet traveling 2900 feet per second, then the offender will have no problem "dodging" six or eight larger bullets traveling at a sedate 1300 feet per second...



What the second statement seems to imply is "hold the trigger down and hope you hit the sucker", which may work in the military or when playing Counter Strike on the Xbox in your mom's basement, but is inadvisable in urban police work. A far better choice would be a non-automatic civilian rifle like an AR-15 in .223 Remington, equipped with a 1x optic for quick, precise shots. Which is what most departments nationwide have been moving toward for the last 15 years.

Submachineguns are for the movies. Small-caliber rifles are far more suitable for police contingencies.

Roberts G.K., "Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons: the Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Carbines Compared with 12 ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant, Police Marksman, Jul/Aug 1998, pp. 38-45.

"INTRODUCTION

"Until recently, the 12 gauge shotgun has remained the universally accepted shoulder fired weapon for United States law enforcement use, despite the shotgun's limitations as a general purpose weapon--short effective range, imprecise accuracy, downrange hazard to bystanders, small ammunition capacity, slow reloading, and harsh recoil. While 12 gauge shotguns still have a valid law enforcement role, especially to deliver specialized munitions and possibly in close quarters combat (CQB), recent recognition of the shotgun's significant limitations as a general purpose weapon have prompted many American law enforcement agencies to begin adopting the more versatile semi-automatic carbine for general purpose use.(12) Semi-automatic carbines offer more accuracy, less recoil, greater effective range, faster reloading, and a larger ammunition capacity than the traditional shotgun.
...
"Less well known is that 5.56mm/.223 rifle ammunition is also ideally suited for law enforcement general purpose use in semi-automatic carbines.(5,6). It offers superb accuracy coupled with low recoil, and is far more effective at incapacitating violent aggressors than the pistol cartridges utilized in submachineguns and some semi-automatic carbines.
...

"CONCLUSION

"A 5.56mm/.223 semi-automatic carbine with a minimum of a 14.5" to 16.5" barrel may be the most effective and versatile weapon for use in law enforcement. When used with effective ammunition, the 5.56mm/.223 carbine simultaneously offers both greater effective range and less potential downrange hazard to bystanders than a 12 ga. shotgun, handgun, pistol caliber carbine, or SMG , as well as far greater potential to incapacitate a violent criminal than any handgun, pistol caliber carbine, or SMG.
...
The routine issuing of 5.56mm/.223 semi-automatic carbines for general purpose use to all law enforcement officers would significantly enhance officer safety, increase police effectiveness, and decrease dangers to innocent bystanders in all situations requiring the use of firearms."

That was the LE consensus 11 years ago.

[iverglas]

39. and if that is the reporter's take on it

- and I'm not seeing any quotation marks - then a lot of hands have been wrong raw for nothing.

[benEzra]

43. Some head-scratching would still be appropriate, though.

To me, it would appear the #1 law enforcement use for these will be "Uber Cool Range Toy." For a longarm to be kept in the trunk or roof rack, an AR-15 would make more sense, or if you want "multiple projectiles on target," a 12-gauge pump or semiauto shotgun.

I did see once that California was issuing MP5's as backup longarms for motorcycle officers (possibly CHP, I don't remember), which makes at least a little sense as an MP5 with a collapsible stock and a restricted Title 2 short barrel is compact enough to fit in a motorcycle's storage compartment (whatever you call them), whereas an AR-15 with the stock fully collapsed and a Title 2 barrel is still too long for a motorcycle, unless the officer wears it strapped to her/his back. But outside of ultra-space-confined storage considerations, I don't think subguns make much sense in LEO use.

[JonQ]

37. The author is clearly ignorant

"assault weapons" are not full autos.

And mass shootings don't occur often enough to justify this, there is a reason we have SWAT teams.

[krispos42]

42. From the article:

Atlanta police officials are testing assault rifles in an effort to match the firepower officers are seeing in the street

The officers are seeing full-auto weapons on the streets. They want full-auto weapons for parity.


At least, that's what they claim.


I doubt it, myself, but I understand not wanting to carry around shotguns, or only shotguns, in a patrol car.

Shotguns have some advantages, but also some major disadvantages.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Anecdotal story time.

Some kid stole a Seattle PD patrol vehicle. Two officers dispatched to find the car spotted each other, assumed the opposite was the kid, and engaged in a shootout where apparently 31 rounds were fired, at each other. Nobody hit their target. They never did figure out where all the bullets landed.

The idea of equipping police officers, who frankly may 'qualify' against non-moving paper targets at 25 yards twice a year, and only practice if they want to, frightens me.

Perhaps training practices where you are, are more stringent. I don't know. In the US, police departments vary wildly in training regimen.

[leveymg]

3. They need new vehicles to go along with the auto weapons. Here's the new Atlanta PD patrol car:

[eqfan592]

6. Hmmmm....

I think you'd have to move the smoke launchers so the guns could rotate down further, otherwise they'd be only able to shoot at airborne criminals. :P

[derby378]

50. Oh, goody! A Christmas gift idea!

THe gas mileage sucks, I know, but it'll make for a cushy commute, and I'm sure someone can covert this into a hybrid. :hi:

[valerief]

4. What, are they bored with tasing little kids and pregnant women? nt

[Irreverend IX]

5. There's no reason for cops to have full auto weapons.

There are two main uses for fully automatic gunfire - suppressive fire and saturation fire. Suppressive fire involves firing many shots at an enemy/enemies to keep them pinned down in an area. Saturation fire is a technique to kill enemies you can't see by spraying so many rounds into their vicinity that a few of them are bound to hit. In a military conflict where the powers that be have decided that winning battles is more important than civilian casualties, these techniques may be warranted, but for a civilian police force tasked with preserving innocent life they're totally inappropriate. It's extremely rare for police to go up against full-auto weapons in the first place, so I'd like to see some actual data on what the Atlanta cops are seeing in the street.

[lurky]

9. Don't forget intimidation.

Something about a cop with an AK47 is creepy as hell.

From Mexico:

[iverglas]

11. oh dear oh dear oh dear!!

You seem to have fallen for the scary black modern-looking tool fear-mongering!

Someone here will be along shortly to disabuse you of this idea that scary-looking guns are different from, oh, hammers, or pillows.

Just be patient, it won't be long.

Who will be first? Step right up!

[PavePusher]

26. Ummm, your ignorance is showing.

Neither of those are AK47's. But feel free to guess again.

And there is no way to tell from those pictures if those are select-fire weapons or not. My guess would be no for the first, and possible for the second, based on weapon configuration and uniforms giving hints as to specialization.

But I've only been in the military for 19 years, so I might not know what I'm talking about.

[benEzra]

30. That has a lot more to do with the bearing of the officer than the gun.

For example, an officer with a regular police uniform, no combat helmet, and no Cool Hand Luke sunglasses, radiating a whole lot less "us vs. them" than your pics:



That's a non-automatic civilian AR-15, BTW, not an M16 (the officer is part of a perimeter set up to cordon off a robbery suspect). The Mexican special police you posted pics of are using actual M16's, though (they are more comparable to U.S. SWAT than to regular U.S. police).

[iverglas]

38. there we go!

Told ya. ;)

[dairydog91]

12. Excuse me: "School Hostage Scenario"?!?

You'd be hard-pressed to find a situation where full-automatic fire would be less appropriate. Spray and pray is not a recommended tactic for room-clearing, particularly when the rooms contain friendlies.

"It is unlikely a target could dodge an assault weapon, especially when it is discharged with full automatic capacity."
So, um, is the new plan to hose moving targets with automatic fire? If so, they should look at light machineguns, which are actually meant for that sort of work.

[iverglas]

15. Excuse me: Really??

You'd be hard-pressed to find a situation where full-automatic fire would be less appropriate. Spray and pray is not a recommended tactic for room-clearing, particularly when the rooms contain friendlies.

I can imagine such a situation with little difficulty.

Doors to classrooms are typically located at the "front" of the room.

Someone bent on shooting people in a classroom would typically enter by the door.

Such a person might, if not typically, at least foreseeably, take up a position at the front of the classroom. Not all such people foresee all possible scenarios themselves and as a result choose to make their way through all the people in the classroom to take up a position behind them, thus using them as cover, or think it wise to try that.

The other people in the classroom would typically be farther "back" in the room, facing the front, with space in between.

Bursting through the door and shooting rapidly and repeatedly at the person standing alone in the front of the room, or perhaps even shooting through the window in the door, I dunno, would seem like a not unreasonable thing to do, to me.

Odds against such a scenario - an individual in a classroom still shooting at others in the room when police arrive - might seem high. But then odds against it happening in the first place are quite high.

I can also imagine other scenarios where this sort of thing would not be out of place. One might be when there was a sniper at a distance. Someone here mentioned the "laying down cover" scenario; in that case it could enable potential shooting victims to clear the area.

Some people have awfully active imaginations when it comes to the bogeyman in the night and how to dispatch them, but not when it comes to other stuff.

[Irreverend IX]

20. Semiauto is better for both scenarios...

A shooter with any skill can fire a semiauto rifle very quickly and keep control of where the bullets are going. In a school shooting or any other scenario with lots of bystanders, no one can afford to assume that the shooter is in a position that can be hosed with gunfire without posing a threat to bystanders. Even if there are no innocents near the shooter, undisciplined full auto fire increases the chances that bullets could hit a bystander on the other side of a wall. Semi auto fire by a skilled shooter means fewer shots fired into a narrower target area, which reduces the chances anything but the intended target will be hit.

And criminals won't be "dodging" semiauto shots anytime soon; most militaries teach that semiauto is the best fire mode to use when you want to hit an enemy, as opposed to scaring them with suppressive fire. Full auto is easier to dodge because of its inherently lower accuracy. Also remember that the OP story is about the possibility of arming beat cops with full-auto rifles, not the SWAT teams who normally respond to active shooters, hostage situations and other serious incidents. The New York cops who killed Sean Bell on the night of his bachelor party fired 50 rounds toward a subway station during the early morning rush hour as he drove away. Guys like that don't need access to an even higher volume of fire.

[yost69]

52. I agree

But then again they don't get that worked up over collateral damage, so why not have fun while pulling the trigger. What a joke.

[krispos42]

90. The full-auto rifles also usually have a selector switch

Safe, semi, full. So they could in theory have full-auto fire as an option but decide not to use it.

:shrug:


AR-15s with 3-round burst option might be a better choice than one with full-auto. Aim, three quick shots, reset, reevaluate.

[dairydog91]

22. Yes. Really really.

"Bursting through the door and shooting rapidly and repeatedly at the person standing alone in the front of the room, or perhaps even shooting through the window in the door, I dunno, would seem like a not unreasonable thing to do, to me."
Regarding this first scenario, Irreverend pretty much said what I'm going to say. Semiauto fire (Or three-round bursts from a low-powered automatic weapon) would be more appropriate. Two shots through the chest, then one more through the head (Even on semi-automatic, a trained shooter can drop someone extremely quickly). I've talked to a number of SWAT and SRT (Prison SWAT) members, as well as firearms instructors for such teams, and they do NOT fire more than three-round automatic bursts in a room clearing situation. An assault rifle on full-automatic, fired when standing, is difficult as all hell to control.

"One might be when there was a sniper at a distance. Someone here mentioned the "laying down cover" scenario; in that case it could enable potential shooting victims to clear the area."
Police departments do the risk of snipers into account, which is one of the reasons that urban PDs usually have trained snipers. I supposed a good-sized, belt-fed machinegun fired from a bipod could also be used against a sniper, but a police department would have to accept the liability of throwing hundreds of rounds into the air against a long-range target. And snipers can already be quite effective: In one incident that comes to my mind, Charles Whitman (U of Texas tower shooter) was suppressed by fire from police and students shooting with hunting rifles.

[ArcticFox]

25. All bad ideas

Each of your examples advocates spraying bullets at a target that the shooter either does not take the time to, or cannot, identify.

Spraying rounds through a door at someone standing up could easily kill the wrong person. Maybe that's not a bad guy. Maybe some kid is trying to escape and runs into the line of fire. Spraying rounds in the direction of a sniper is sust stupid. If you're in an urban environment, you're probably saturating a forty foot radius at several hundred yards (and many rounds would go high and travel a great distance). How many people might be in the way? Also, any good sniper would hide his position. You'd probably be very wrong about his location. If you knew his location, you'd be better off with a bolt action .308 with a scope, so you might actually hit something.

Your last sentence truly describes yourself.

[iverglas]

44. now that's interesting

Your last sentence truly describes yourself.

My last sentence was:

Some people have awfully active imaginations when it comes to the bogeyman in the night and how to dispatch them, but not when it comes to other stuff.

In all of the hundreds and hundreds of chats that have taken place here about how to dispatch bogeymen in the night (and what tool is best for the job), I don't think I've ever made a single contribution.

Huh.

Active imagination you have there. To be charitable.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. If memory serves, that is not accurate.

Pretty sure you suggested feet (mobility/escape) and vocal chords (getting help/sanctuary).

I want to say 'not that there's anything wrong with that' but I'm sure it would come across as sarcastic, when I do not mean it.

[iverglas]

79. if you're still here

Pretty sure you suggested feet (mobility/escape) and vocal chords (getting help/sanctuary).

Those are potential methods of avoiding harm.

They are not ways of "dispatching bogeymen in the night".

That would be something like making sure you're using ammunition capable of penetrating chest cavities, a suggestion made the other day.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Yeah, yeah, technicalities.

Still here, but restricting myself to a few visits a day. We'll see how I hold up. :)


I tend to automatically associate synonyms appropriate to the context of the sentence. I subbed in 'vanquish' or 'defeat' for 'kill', which I think applies if you take steps to defeat the designs of some boogeyman that wants to break in your house and harm you, even if the mode of resistance is escape.

Incidentally, did you ever see this Nike ad for the 2000 Olympics? I thought it was an enjoyable play on sterotypes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF72ovuM3_s

[ArcticFox]

75. Your last sentence

I think I misinterpreted that last sentence. What I got from your earlier post was a feeling you were advocating spraying bullets in the general direction of a potential target.

What I meant is that I think it demonstrates a pretty active imagination to think that this kind of tactic would be (1) effective and (2) unlikely to injure innocent people.

I would hope you can agree that cops should not be given carte blanch to fire automatic weapons in the direction of a sniper or through a classroom door.

[PavePusher]

27. The depths of your imagination...

...never cease to amuse me. The shallowness of your knowledge, however, is simply astounding.

At the Virginia Tech Mass Disarmed Victim Incident, it is well documented that the filthy bastard shooter walked unhindered about the classrooms.

But heck, stick with your own personal bias, it seems to work well... for you.

[iverglas]

45. "walked unhindered about the classrooms"

I guess that has something to do with something I said.

Or ... not.

Oh well.

[benEzra]

35. If Plan A for dispatching the bogeyman is spraying uncontrolled fire in a crowded area

then the planner is an idiot. Double that if the chosen weapon is a pistol caliber submachinegun and not a small-caliber rifle with burst capability.

I shoot competitively with a civilian AK, IPSC (which you also have in Canada, BTW). In the scenario you describe, getting a hit on a single target at the distance you describe would require quick aimed fire, not spray and pray; even SWAT would be using single shot or 3-shot burst at most, not full auto. Full auto subguns are fine for sweeping a midsized room if you don't have to worry about friendlies (either in the room or on the other side of the wall), not so good for this situation. Could they be so used by competent hands, yes of course; are they ideal, no. Even SWAT and the military have gotten away from pistol-caliber shoulder arms, BTW.

My personal opinion is someone at the department has "Iwannacoolgunitis" and is writing the proposal to justify that. But aside from range fun, small-caliber rifles are better for most police work.

[iverglas]

46. where did you hear this Plan A??

Is it like Plan 9 From Outer Space?

[jeepnstein]

49. Stick to what you know.

Have you actually had any active shooter training or just spouting off?

[iverglas]

80. funny thing, here

I'm not the one "spouting off".

I'm suggesting that the ones spouting off might be considerably less worth spending time listening to than the people who know what situations they have to deal with, and what would be useful for dealing with them.

[ManiacJoe]

58. What you described is not "spray and pray".

What you described is rapid, aimed fire. Very different and very appropriate for that scenario.

[iverglas]

81. huh

What you described is not "spray and pray".
What you described is rapid, aimed fire. Very different and very appropriate for that scenario.

So I wonder why that didn't occur to the person who said:

Spray and pray is not a recommended tactic for room-clearing, particularly when the rooms contain friendlies.

Since I think he and only he was the one talking about spray-and-pray to start with.

I think that was my point, hm?

[benEzra]

89. You were defending the use of automatic fire from pistol-caliber submachineguns

which is bit of a different animal from rapid, aimed fire. Which is why I suggested that full-auto subguns are a poor choice for such use in the first place.

I shoot competitively in a discipline (IPSC) that requires rapid, aimed fire at distances comparable to your scenario, often with "no shoot" targets interspersed with "shoot" targets, and I will state most categorically that a full auto buzzgun would be inferior to a semiauto with an optic for the scenario you describe (single target, friendlies nearby). In a military situation without friendlies around, full auto (whether in a direct-fire or suppressive role) are potentially useful; in general civilian law enforcement, not so much, IMO.

[hlthe2b]

18. I don't know if they need them, but I do wish--just for once

that these decisions would be truly data driven based on thoughtful study and not testosterone-driven impulse or military envy. Sorry to those who find that offensive, but it IS a problem that seemingly won't go away.

[Tim01]

21. I can't think of many situations where cops would actually need full auto.

This is a lot more likely to get innocents shot.

[ArcticFox]

23. Cops are cowards

"Many officers complain that should they be faced with a mass shooting -- such as a school hostage scenario -- they don't want to be outgunned."

Remember Columbine? There were two shooters inside along with lots of innocent kids bleeding to death while the hundreds of cops outside waited for it to be safe to enter. How long did they wait after the shooting stopped? I can't remember. I just remember these horrifying images of cops taking rest breaks while people inside were dying.

Give them automatic weapons and they'll just use them to kill more innocent people. They'll still be too scared to confront a high school kid with a .45.

They haven't been outgunned for a long time. Just afraid to get shot. Isn't that their job? To take a bullet for some innocent kid? Used to be. Now they just look for the easiest arrest. Given the choice between stopping a shooting and arresting a crackhead, it's easier and safer to find some junky with a little crack. I'm sure it earns a promotion just as well too.

Cowards all of em.

[joey5150]

28. f\:02c8\:0254ls (f'awls)

yummy bait.....

[Indy Lurker]

29. you watch too much TV

The goal of a rescuer is to help without getting hurt.

If you get hurt, you now become a victim, making the situation worse.

and bullets shot by a high school kid with a .45. cause just as much damage as bullets shot for a trained professional with a .45 if you get hit.

Columbine was a terrible tragedy, prior to that event, police were trained to deal with hostage situations, and to wait for hostage demands.

Since that day, most if not all police departments have trained for a mass school shooting where a "rapid entry" response is used.

[Tim01]

33. Do your parents know you are on the computer? nt

[ArcticFox]

41. What's that, an insult?

If that's all you've got, nothing of any substance, then maybe you should get off this board and just go back to watching COPS.

[Tim01]

62. If you kept quiet you would not make yourself look so un educated. nt

[Raskolnik]

40. Troll flamebait crap. n/t

[iverglas]

47. the same criticism was levelled regarding the Montreal Polytechnique shootings

A long coroner's inquest was held that focused particularly on the conduct of police and emergency services in responding to the event. They too had waited outside the building. In that case, it turned out that the shooting had ended and the offender was dead by suicide well before they entered.

In both that case and Columbine, police were caught off guard. They had no plan for such events, because such events didn't happen.

I think the situation is rather different now.

And yet it seems that police opinion about what tools they may need for the job is to be discounted.

Damned if they don't ...



edited to add omitted word

[AtheistCrusader]

48. They'd be better off skipping full auto

train to hit better, and add .308 rifles to their patrol cars. .223 is damn near useless if your target is wearing enough armor.

Full auto is for suppressing fire, something a squad of people would do to force another group to ground. There's just about no possible urban scenario to warrant it.

[benEzra]

59. Any armor that will stop .223 (NIJ Level III) will also stop 7.62x39mm and .308.

To defeat level III, you have to step up to the high-powered hunting calibers above .30-06, .30-06 AP, or military/police restricted .308 tungsten core AP, none of which are really practical in a patrol rifle. The 9mm's the Atlanta PD is considering can be stopped by NIJ Level II and IIIA, though.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Level III will stop .308 in 148 grain NATO Ball at 2780 ft/s

That's the maximum rating. 168 grain at ~3,000ft/s? All bets are off. To say nothing of steel core, without getting into exotics like tungsten.

[benEzra]

69. That's what it's guaranteed to stop under the NIJ cert standards.

Hence, the armor will probably stop slightly greater threats; some NIJ Level III will probably stop some .30-06 loads, for example, though it is not rated to.

My point is, though, that III wil reliably stop both .223 and .308, and anything that will easily penetrate III is going to require a heavy gun with severe recoil, enough that the gun would be much less useful in typical CQB environments than a .223. And, of course, IIIA will stop neither, or any other centerfire rifle cartridge.

At any range, .308 with proper load selection certainly offers greater incapacitation potential and lethality than .223 against unarmored targets, at the cost of heavier recoil and slightly reduced capacity, but where .308 really outshines .223 are much greater effectiveness at range, better penetration of building materials with appropriate load selection (if desired), and of course hunting applications. But against armor, you don't really gain much over .223 until you step up to the full-power calibers.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Good points.

I was weaned on 30.06, and I often make the mistake of assuming that .308 is the same thing in an auto-loading case shape. .308 simply isn't equivalent to 30.06.

[rd_kent]

72. A shooting in Montreal? I thought gund were banned in Canada

Guess that ban didnt have the effect you were hoping for, huh? Think I have also been reading about the growing violent gun crime rate in Canada too.

[iverglas]

82. I don't think so

Aren't Gund some sort of stuffed toy?

Now, if you think guns are banned in Canada, you've provided my daily confirmation of how ignorant so many people south of my border are about just about anything.

[benEzra]

31. The story is garbled. The text speaks of automatic assault rifles,

but the pic shows a full auto submachinegun, which is NOT a rifle caliber weapon.

IMO, submachineguns make very little sense for civilian law enforcement. They are close-range weapons that lack a rifle's precision and range versatility, the whole reason for replacing shotguns with rifles in the first place, while carrying a much greater risk of ricochet and extra rounds downrange than a rifle.

To me, equipping officers with non-automatic civilian AR-15's instead of submachineguns would make immensely more sense (which is why most other departments in the USA issue AR-15's, not submachineguns).

[Howzit]

64. The MP5 is renowned for accuracy and controllability, even full-auto

This is largely due to it firing from a closed bolt, unlike most sub-guns. And yes, it is select fire if you want to use it as a precision short-range "carbine".

That said, unless the cops train like the SAS there are going to be holy hostages no longer running around...

I would rather they use sniper rifles from outside the building if they are very sure of their target, or pistols for inside so they can avoid hitting non-combatants.

[benEzra]

65. Or semiauto M4-style AR's inside...

which is what most departments would do. They also offer less risk of overpenetration compared to typical pistol rounds, given suitable ammunition choice.

[gorfle]

34. More increased police powers of the state.

The weapon under discussion is the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun. This weapon is usually chambered for the 9mm Parabellum pistol cartridge, though other pistol calibers are available. The weapon is select fire, which means it can fire in either semi or fully-automatic mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_MP5

Submachine guns like the MP5 are frequently used in support of breaching or room-clearing exercises by tactical units. They are favored for this work because they are compact and thus maneuverable in tight places such as inside buildings:



Such operations are usually conducted by troops operating as a team that have trained how to speedily breach and clear buildings.

There is no reason for standard patrol officers to possess this kind of weapon. This is just another example of the police power of the state going out of control in their never-sated appetite for more power. The excuse, as per usual, is "we're outgunned on the streets", or, evoking Columbine, "it's for the children".

I do not have a problem with police departments having a trained SWAT team to deal with breach and clearing operations. Your average patrolman, however, is not going to have the training nor are the likely to be in situations that require a machine gun like this.

[ArcticFox]

63. amen

There is no reason for standard patrol officers to possess this kind of weapon. This is just another example of the police power of the state going out of control in their never-sated appetite for more power. The excuse, as per usual, is "we're outgunned on the streets", or, evoking Columbine, "it's for the children".

You're right on.

[davepc]

36. I guess they're jealous of South Carolina sheriff Leon Lott and his M113 and .50 cal.

Because nothing says police work like a belt fed machine gun and an armored personnel carrier.

This is the same toolbag sheriff who wanted to bust Michael Phelps on drug charges based on a photo of a bong.

[spin]

83. Many police departments have access to assault rifles...

For example, Florida's police departments.

A total of 1,941 M-16s, M-14s and grenade launchers have been approved for transfer from military surplus stocks to Florida law enforcement agencies. The numbers in the
chart represent approved transfers, but may not represent actual transfers as some of the rifles may not have been received yet.
http://www2.sptimes.com/pdfs/gunscharts.pdf

This link provides some very interesting info. Don't mess with law enforcement in Florida.

[Taitertots]

84. Stupidest idea ever

Just give them FALs if they are worried about being "out gunned". The last thing a group that is unable to hit things with a pistol needs is automatic weapons.

The police are so full of it with the "out gunned" lie. 4 cops with hand guns are not out gunned by one person with a WASR.