Spokane police getting suppressors

[Frank_N_Stein]

I hope SPD gets a suppressor for every weapon they have. I hope they all have a dozen or so to choose from on any given day. I feel for any officer who suits up in that liberal cesspool and attempts to enforce the law for the population of that city. I hope the purchase of additional weapons and suppressors makes a few thousand liberal heads explode out there.

As for stats.... I read someone mentioning how unlikely it is that an officer will fire their handgun or their rifle on duty. I'd like to see some stats on that. I'd like to see how someone might go about attempting to gather accurate statistics seeing how a town Marshall in Slapyermomma Idaho is gonna count the same as an officer in Indianapolis, are they doing the same job? Not quite. Wanna guess how many officers in Indianapolis have fired their weapons on duty? I have a clue and it's a few more than a few. Three of us sat down and within 5 minutes came up with 75 names a few years back.

An officer's chances in Indy are far from minimal. I've been in a house with an AR15 being fired, I'm all for LE having suppressors on their rifles and that experience strengthened that opinion significantly.

I remember that study and questionnaire. I has a sad that you had to retire.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Well, one would think better of questioning someone's integrity who obviously knows a smidge more than you do about this **** but apparently we're both wrong in what one would think.

I wasn't being condescending or was I calling you a liar, and if you took it that way I apologize for my poor choice of words.
Its interesting on how simple of a question I asked, post data that officers hearing has been affected and in what numbers over the years. Seems simple, All I have heard is personal opinions. I'm not trying to impute anyone, one would think that to prove that a piece of equipment is needed, data would be easily posted to support the need for additional equipment.
I really dont know all that much about you or your employment history, I will not hold it against you.
Thats good to know that you know me and my last 45+ years of employment background..

And with this, I'm done with this thread.

 

[Beowulf]

Look, I have my own issues with police playing soldier (and the general militarization of police that's been happening here since the 60's). That being said, suppressors are hearing safety equipment, full stop. Police, just like anyone else who works in a noisy environment, should have hearing protection and since it's not practical for them to ask a bad guy to please wait to start a firefight until they have time to muff up, I think it's silly that we'd be arguing against it. I do also think, like was suggested up thread, that if more police use suppressors and the public sees it, it does become harder to justify maligning them as assassins tools, rather than a safety device.

Besides, I think you are all missing a really important fact. I've been watching a really engrossing documentary series on AMC. What was it called... oh yeah, Walking Dead or something like that. I've learned that in the inevitable occurance of a zombie outbreak, we need as many suppressors lying around as possible so that the survivors can pick them up and use them to fight the undead hordes. I mean, how embarrassing would it be to be cutting a swathe through the post-apocalyptic wasteland with some stupid homemade can on your gun?

 

[shootersix]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/corps-put-silencers-whole-infantry-battalion.html

wonder if this is upsetting? this is our tax dollars also? don't our tax dollars pay for cans the special forces?

honestly if I can't afford a can for my ar or for my pistols, if I could, i'd have one on my home defense guns all the time!, because a phylo said, shooting a gun indoors will hurt your ears, and if some meth head tweaker enters my and I have to shoot, I could care less about his or my hearing!...but I don't want my wife, kids or dogs going deaf or getting tinnitus! and if its the middle of the night, and the police are across the street and shoot their rifle, I don't want them freaking out my family or dogs because of the sonic crack that happens when they shoot!.

like my point on the hearing protection act, sometimes you don't have time to put on ear muffs!, i'm all for police protecting themselves! if putting a can on their duty weapons protects their hearing go for it I really don't care!, because in the long run, 300 bucks for a can, is a lot cheaper than 60 grand a year for disability! (yes I said 300 bucks, cause if police departments start buying large amounts of them, they'll get better pricing and the cost will drop from 600 bucks a can)

as for the point of "not an issued weapon", our local police (Evansville) carry m-16's (yes full auto m-16's) that are government surplus (with the full auto parts removed), but only sergeants and above, below that rank if you want to carry an ar, you have to buy it yourself (and only rock river, bushmaster or colt, no other brands are allowed).

I think that's bu**s**t!, I had an office come in one time, he was asking me questions about the red dot sight on his ar (he'd bought the cheapest bushmaster rural king sold, and it came with a primary arms red dot) it'd go off sometimes while he was shooting it, but it was the cheapest ar he could afford (he was a rookie, and couldn't carry it in his car, till his probation year was over) all I could do was tell him epd's police was bs! he could buy and carry a 450.00 bushmaster or 900.00 colt, but not a 1400.00 Daniel defense!

 

[phylodog]

Lets say those numbers of 75 names are true

I wasn't being condescending or was I calling you a liar, and if you took it that way I apologize for my poor choice of words.
Its interesting on how simple of a question I asked, post data that officers hearing has been affected and in what numbers over the years. Seems simple, All I have heard is personal opinions. I'm not trying to impute anyone, one would think that to prove that a piece of equipment is needed, data would be easily posted to support the need for additional equipment.
I really dont know all that much about you or your employment history, I will not hold it against you.
Thats good to know that you know me and my last 45+ years of employment background..

And with this, I'm done with this thread.

Not sure how it could have been taken any other way.

As far as my work history goes, I just retired with 20yrs in LE (6yrs military prior to that) where I spent 12yrs on SWAT and 10 supervising the Firearms Training Section of an agency of 1600+ which included tracking shootings, officer injuries, testing, evaluating, selecting and justifying equipment purchases as well as equipment officers are authorized to purchase and use on and off the job. I don't claim to be an expert at anything nor does anything I've done amount to any significance but I'll post my educated opinion on matters dealing with officer safety and equipment where needed. I don’t need reassurance or acceptance the point where I’d start making shut up to get it, if I post something factual you can take it to the bank.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

It was a conversation about issuing LE cans, nothing more. And again, if I offended you with my poor choice of words, I apologise again..
You have your opinion and I have mine. I have enough deployments and other background to have an opinion plus as a taxpayer I definitely have an opinion.
But one would think that with your vast experience with officer shooting and injurys the data for hearing damage would be prevalent and easy to post.
And it leads me to the question, with the years you spent justifying and selecting equipment and cans are a necessary piece of equipment for officer and the public's safety why after all those years is it not yet a reality?

 

[Birds Away]

And with this, I'm done with this thread.

Sadly untrue.

 

[shootersix]

with the years you spent justifying and selecting equipment and cans are a necessary piece of equipment for officer and the public's safety why after all those years is it not yet a reality?

because suppressors are "only used by criminals!" and "why would anybody need one unless their committing a crime?" and "people don't need silencers!"

those are comments made by liberal's and even some gun owners!, remember if we cant educate our fellow shooters and hunters, how can we educate legislators? (including local, state and federal)

yes, I have heard all of those comments from shooters and hunters! and after listening to my reasons why they should be legal and not on the nfa, at least 1 changed his mind, and emailed legislators about the hpa!

 

[Clay Pigeon]

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

Sadly untrue.

Cop Hate... You obviously don't know me or have anything worthwhile to post... Troll on.

 

[Birds Away]

Cop Hate... You obviously don't know me or have anything worthwhile to post... Troll on.

Ditto.

 

[phylodog]

It was a conversation about issuing LE cans, nothing more. And again, if I offended you with my poor choice of words, I apologise again..
You have your opinion and I have mine. I have enough deployments and other background to have an opinion plus as a taxpayer I definitely have an opinion.
But one would think that with your vast experience with officer shooting and injurys the data for hearing damage would be prevalent and easy to post.
And it leads me to the question, with the years you spent justifying and selecting equipment and cans are a necessary piece of equipment for officer and the public's safety why after all those years is it not yet a reality?

I think we've established that the stats you've requested don't exist, just like the stats showing how unlikely it is for an officer to shoot their weapon in the line of duty. The reality is that hearing damage/loss is a compounding injury and rarely is one single incident deemed the cause of hearing damage.

I never said cans were a necessary piece of equipment. Are they a piece of safety equipment? Absolutely and for several different reasons, but necessary I never claimed. Cops have lots of unnecessary equipment and a lot of it costs a hell of a lot more than a suppressor but as soon as a piece of equipment is brought up which is primarily designed for an officer's safety rather than everyone else's we suddenly have a huge issue with it. We carry Tasers at $800ea and bean bag launchers so we don't beat up people anymore, we carry tourniquets so we can apply them to citizens in need since we're usually the first to arrive (yet strangely the only people who get *****ed at about their response times), Narcan or Naloxone to revive the drug addicts and no one minds a bit and so on.

As mentioned, there are plenty of things to get bent out of shape about when talking about tax dollars being spent. You've dug your heels in and you're correct that you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. You should also be willing to accept that your opinion on this matter is going to affect how folks feel about you.

 

[Trigger Time]

I havent been a fan in the past of police wearing military type uniforms or having armored vehicles. But seeing the trend now of acceptible violence towards police and the taunting and total downtrend of society I'm now for it. Get all the armored vehicles and guns and other equipment that the feds will give out. Get it while we can for the police. I've completely changed my view on this subject within just the last year. I've seen many departments have to use these vehicles to save lives. That's priceless.
As long as the law is followed I dont have an issue. Same attitude the police should and most do have towards us.
Suppressors should be able to be bought at the grocery store. Sam's club, menards, cosco. They are devices for safety. Take my tax money, but dont forget me. I will support the police but I want their support on issues like constitutional carry and hearing protection act. Tit for tat. Who doesbt like titts!?

 

[churchmouse]

Well I can see this has reached the end.