|
I carry a rifle every day as a rural LEO. A few individuals in my department who have the ear of the Sheriff convienced him to allow some "certain" individuals to have full auto's. I protested long and hard against them carrying full-auto rifles for several reasons.
1. Lack of training
2. Lack of accessible ammo (for reloads) if they ever used full auto
3. There is NO LEO scenario that anyone can think of that will convience me that a full auto rifle is the BEST answer too. Because, if there was I would have a SAW in my truck instead of an AR-15.
4. LEO'S are personally accountable for every single round they send down range, why would I or any other LEO introduce less control over this fact. By allowing an untrained or under trained individual to utilize full auto in an already HIGHLY stressful event such as shooting someone, you introduce less control and more liablity.
5. There is no situation I can't take care of on semi-auto that can be taken care of more effectively with full-auto.
Full auto is a liabilty for LEO's not an assest.
Just my .02 cents
__________________
"This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck, "The Law"
|
Threaded Mode
