Should law enforcement be allowed to have automatic weapons?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Mirage, Aug 18, 2008.


Should law enforcement be allowed to have automatic weapons?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Your opinions on this will differ depending on what country you live in. I'm in the US where guns are legal. Our law enforcement and police departments are generally always restricted to 9mm hand guns and shotguns ONLY (standard, there are cases in which they are allowed better weapons).

    Aside from SWAT teams and military automatic weapons are not used in law enforcement as far as I know.

    The argument is that criminals will have these types of guns, yet our police do not.

    In 1997, bank robbers armed with fully automatic assault weapons (AK47's).

    Police showed up of course but did not have any weapons to compete with them. The military had to show up. Here's a brief documentary on this robbery/battle.

    YouTube - 1997 North Hollywood Shootout pt.1

    Here's the live footage:

    YouTube - Hollywood Shootout - Uncut video (last 9 minutes)

    Do you think police officers should have access to such automatic weaponry? Not to mention, should police body armor be upped to stop automatic bullets?

    I think if the potential is there for highly armed criminals, law enforcement should be allowed to have weapons to properly engage. They should also be allowed military grade body armor that will protect them from such weaponry.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2008

  2. Major

    Major 4 legs good 2 legs bad V.I.P.

    Don't cops have shotguns? Yes, I think they should have access to automatic weaponry.
  3. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

  4. micfranklin

    micfranklin Eviscerator

    In a world with crime like this, of course they deserve to get automatic weapons.

    And so do regular law-abiding citizens IMO.
  5. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    My thoughts exactly. Why should they be more equal then us mere commoners? :rolleyes:
  6. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    It's a slippery slope when debating just what type of weapons citizens can own.

    To keep and bear arms? Our arms just guns or does it expand to biological weapons such as an atomic bomb or nuclear bomb? I don't want ANY citizen having the right to own a nuclear bomb, I don't care how "law abiding" they are.

    It's safe to say that the Constitution did not take into account all types of arms when making the 2nd amendment. If they had then we'd probably be limited to muskets right now, so the argument has pros and cons to it.
  7. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    The federalist papers are very clear. Citizens can own what a common foot soilder of the time would have. I.e. An M4 with a 3 shot bust is legal. A tank is not.
  8. bball4life

    bball4life Alfred :: Gotham Hero

    because if normal people could have automatic guns, the crime rate would be sky high.i thought of even thinking about letting normal people have auto matic guns is just rediculous IMO.
  9. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    So just having a gun makes me a raving lunatic all of a sudden? :rolleyes: You do realize semi-automatic and automatic weapons are used in less then 1% of violent crimes correct?
  10. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    The regular police in the UK don't carry firearms. So if we are talking about the regular cops on the beat then 'no' they should not have Automatic weapons.

    The firearms units carry G3's, G36's or HK93's, then the answer is already 'yes' I think.

    Had the above event happened over here the regular police would of done little, it would of been given to 'Armed Response' if it got really out of hand then the SAS would probably be left to deal with it.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2008

Share This Page