Spokane police getting suppressors

[NyleRN]

Do you know how I know you have no idea what's behind those Browning Vaults in my home and shop??? Because you don't know me....
Is the pile on gonna start now?

I don't need to know what's in those browning vaults. By your statement I got all I need to know. I'm not here to pile on you. But when you use the term "adapters" when referencing the suppressor mounts that tells me something. Also, when you state that said "adapters" need to be purchased in addition to the can, that tells me something also since 90% of suppressors come with a mount unless they're a DT model. Then you threw out maintenance of suppressors like there is such a thing on centerfire rifle cans that are sealed.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

How is ownership of the firearm any kind of liability?

I would think that any firearm that is carried by a LEO is a critical piece of safety equipment,
And like any other critical safety equipment the employer is required by the Feds to supply it. Are not sidearms issued by all Dept for officers?
And with carrying personal firearms the Dept has no control over personally owned firearms and its history or if it's been correctly maintained. And with just that it could easily be a liability not just to the officer carrying his person rifle, but the other officers and citizens involved or as bystanders.
It would be interesting to see the court outcomes over the last 25 years with shootings that officers using personally owned firearms have been in, especially in the civil trials.

 

[AngryRooster]

Many small departments not only allow personally owned firearms, some require it due to budget costs.


Not seeing why this would be an issue. Department drafts a list of approved firearms, policy says do not modify them from stock configuration. No problems.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I don't need to know what's in those browning vaults. By your statement I got all I need to know. I'm not here to pile on you. But when you use the term "adapters" when referencing the suppressor mounts that tells me something. Also, when you state that said "adapters" need to be purchased in addition to the can, that tells me something also since 90% of suppressors come with a mount unless they're a DT model. Then you threw out maintenance of suppressors like there is such a thing on centerfire rifle cans that are sealed.

I'm sixty years old, I'm from the days of urethane swipes and adaptors... Millennials.... #allcansarntsealed

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Many small departments not only allow personally owned firearms, some require it due to budget costs.


Not seeing why this would be an issue. Department drafts a list of approved firearms, policy says do not modify them from stock configuration. No problems.

Didn't think I was making a big deal over it. Personally I could care less what my local officer carries.

 

[NyleRN]

I'm sixty years old, I'm from the days of urethane swipes and adaptors... Millennials.... #allcansarntsealed

No millennial here, I was born in the '70s. And yes, I understand not all cans are sealed but I wouldn't expect a department to buy a bunch of Griffin Optimus'. Have a good night Clay, I'm going to bed

 

[VUPDblue]

I would think that any firearm that is carried by a LEO is a critical piece of safety equipment,
And like any other critical safety equipment the employer is required by the Feds to supply it. Are not sidearms issued by all Dept for officers?
And with carrying personal firearms the Dept has no control over personally owned firearms and its history or if it's been correctly maintained. And with just that it could easily be a liability not just to the officer carrying his person rifle, but the other officers and citizens involved or as bystanders.
It would be interesting to see the court outcomes over the last 25 years with shootings that officers using personally owned firearms have been in, especially in the civil trials.

A firearm is not safety equipment in the sense that you want it to be. There is also no mandate as to who provides it to an Officer.

Departments absolutely do have control over what an individual Officer carries if it is personally owned. Both departments I have worked for have allowed personally owned firearms, but they are required to be of certain calibers, makes, models and only have approved accessories. Those firearms are routinely inspected and trained on.

My department's policy is that if I am acting in any police capacity, I have to be armed with a department-approved firearm that I am currently qualified on. I know of one Officer on a particular department that was found to have a rifle in his car that he was NOT qualified on or approved to carry, and he got a 30 day unpaid vacation. This is serious business and is tightly controlled and regulated. Most departments now days aren't a bunch of Barnys with some random AR or AK tossed in the trunk.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

A firearm is not safety equipment in the sense that you want it to be. There is also no mandate as to who provides it to an Officer.

Departments absolutely do have control over what an individual Officer carries if it is personally owned. Both departments I have worked for have allowed personally owned firearms, but they are required to be of certain calibers, makes, models and only have approved accessories. Those firearms are routinely inspected and trained on.

My department's policy is that if I am acting in any police capacity, I have to be armed with a department-approved firearm that I am currently qualified on. I know of one Officer on a particular department that was found to have a rifle in his car that he was NOT qualified on or approved to carry, and he got a 30 day unpaid vacation. This is serious business and is tightly controlled and regulated. Most departments now days aren't a bunch of Barnys with some random AR or AK tossed in the trunk.

Thanks for the reply. I just dont see it as a win, for the taxpayer.

 

[KLB]

Thanks for the reply. I just dont see it as a win, for the taxpayer.

You must think the Marines are really wasting money then.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-suppressors-will-change-battlefield-tactics/

 

[Gabriel]

Thanks for the reply. I just dont see it as a win, for the taxpayer.

It's a win for everyone.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

You must think the Marines are really wasting money then.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-suppressors-will-change-battlefield-tactics/

Your thinking wrong,
The odds that a 300 series MOS grunt will be deployed and will fire his M4 are vastly greater than the average LEO shooting his AR while he is on duty..

 

[Clay Pigeon]

It's a win for everyone.

You gotta do better than that, how is it a win for the taxpayers purchasing unnecessary equipment?

 

[HK Guy]

I'm all for PoPo have the equipment they need to do their job. If they want suppressors great, get them for them.

My dad was deer hunting a couple of years ago and cranked off a round from his hunting shack with no ear protection. He's half deaf now and had to spend $6K on hearing aids which don't work worth a crap. Same would go for PoPo that cranks off a round in a house, hearing loss. Amplified hearing protections and/or a can for the win. Much cheaper in the long run than having to pay for line of duty hearing losses.

By the way the local SWAT team dumped most of their cans as they were loud, heavy and long. Thus the move to Pigs. I'm sure if they had the money for some high end issued cans they would take them but they don't. Most guys spend $1000s of their own money supplementing their basic issued gear.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I'm all for PoPo have the equipment they need to do their job. If they want suppressors great, get them for them.

My dad was deer hunting a couple of years ago and cranked off a round from his hunting shack with no ear protection. He's half deaf now and had to spend $6K on hearing aids which don't work worth a crap. Same would go for PoPo that cranks off a round in a house, hearing loss. Amplified hearing protections and/or a can for the win. Much cheaper in the long run than having to pay for line of duty hearing losses.

By the way the local SWAT team dumped most of their cans as they were loud, heavy and long. Thus the move to Pigs. I'm sure if they had the money for some high end issued cans they would take them but they don't. Most guys spend $1000s of their own money supplementing their basic issued gear.

I don't have a problem with buying necessary equipment, if it's necessary.
I just don't believe that buying cans for street officers is a prudent expenditure with taxpayers money. The odds that an officer will ever fire his handgun are very low much less to fire a rifle inside of a building or anywhere close while on duty.
One would think if it's a noise problem it would seem that handgun cans would be more necessary than a rifle can.. I mean because handguns are fired much more often than a rifle.
What is the data for officers that have fired a rifle while on duty?
What is the data for officers that have hearing issues at retirement or before?
Is a baseline hearing test done to officers when they are employed and at regular intervals to see if and when they have hearing problems and when it started happening?

It's easy to say someone needs this, but when the taxpayer is paying it needs to be justified.

 

[Rookie]

I went hunting with my buddy last night. I was standing five feet away when he shot a coyote. My ears were ringing for quite a while. Shooting unsuppressed sucks indoors or outdoors.

The more police departments buying suppressors, the better. I think it would help justify removing them from nfa. Especially when they're pitching them as safety devices.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

The more police departments buying suppressors, the better. I think it would help justify removing them from nfa. Especially when they're pitching them as safety devices.

Has LE with the ability to purchase newly manufactured machine guns had any effect on reversing the 86 ban?





The answer is no..

 

[Rookie]

Has LE started supplying every officer with a machine gun? Has LE tried to say a machine gun is a safety device?

The answer is no.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Butthurt achieved.

 

[HK Guy]

I don't have a problem with buying necessary equipment, if it's necessary.
I just don't believe that buying cans for street officers is a prudent expenditure with taxpayers money. The odds that an officer will ever fire his handgun are very low much less to fire a rifle inside of a building or anywhere close while on duty.
One would think if it's a noise problem it would seem that handgun cans would be more necessary than a rifle can.. I mean because handguns are fired much more often than a rifle.
What is the data for officers that have fired a rifle while on duty?
What is the data for officers that have hearing issues at retirement or before?
Is a baseline hearing test done to officers when they are employed and at regular intervals to see if and when they have hearing problems and when it started happening?

It's easy to say someone needs this, but when the taxpayer is paying it needs to be justified.

I don't know if there are specific studies on rifle vs pistol and hearing loss. However gunfire is cumulative and over a 20 year + career it can add up to hearing loss.

Without thinking too hard, there have been a few OIS in the last 6 months or so around here. All have been pistols.

Again without thinking too hard, I've got a couple of friends that have been in OIS, some rifles some pistols. Some say they didn't even hear the gun go off. Most have permanent hearing loss. If given the opportunity I'm pretty sure all would have preferred a can or some ear pro.

What are the chances a guy will be shot? Pretty low, but they still make them wear body armor.

 

[Birds Away]

The cop hate on here is much stronger than I thought.