• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rail cops get great guns

what're these ones?

Transit%20Hub%20Security%20Drill_002122253--500x380.jpg




mp5 9mm hk


Note the last officer with poor finger control and poor muzzle coverage. ;)
 
Last edited:
OK, well the cops are protected then....but what about everyone else? Can they have full body armor and M16's too?

Of course not, an armed populace makes the thugs in blue insecure, how else will they be able unload 50 rounds into people unchecked. Feudal Lord Bloomberg could simply let NYC citizens carry weapons but thats too hard.
 
That only covers one type of threat. A suicide bomber.
The idea is to cover as many types of potential threats as possible with the tools that you give the security forces.
The carbines are good at close to medium range, have good penetration against body armour, they are a much more stable firing platform, they carry twice to three times the amount of rounds in the magazine for follow up shots. Add to that they look as intimidating as hell, and one thing your terrorist likes is a nice big jucy undefended target.
For real close in work they have sidearms.

There is a secondary purpose of logistics involved in the choice too. If the NYPD have been using AR series rifles for special purposes the police are already trained in their use. They most likely already have a stock of the rounds a contract for parts etc. Its easier to stay with a platform you already use if it does the job rather than going with a new one.

The PSNI (the other routinely heavly armed police force I know of) usually carry the MP5. Most of their threats that can be defeated by firearms are unarmoured targets at close range. The MP5 is great for that. However drive bys are not unheard of, especially at traffic stops, or crimescenes etc. For that they usually have the larger G3 in 7.62mm providing cover. This weapon is reserved for single shot takedowns against targets in cover (usually means still in the car) and suppression.

As I said the most common weapons are the MP5 with Glock sidearms. This means that you only have to purchase one type of round in both weapons.

You are correct but the 9mm are still under powered. A 7.62 NATO (.308) does have some power behind it and for some time has been the round of choice for the Sniper. Again in close quarters has potential for collateral damage.
 
You are correct but the 9mm are still under powered. A 7.62 NATO (.308) does have some power behind it and for some time has been the round of choice for the Sniper. Again in close quarters has potential for collateral damage.

The 9mm round is good for two things. Target practice and high rate of fire weapons, not much else. This is why the majority of police departments now use a .40 as the standard side arm.

I am still a .45 man myself. Combat tested in every WW and up to Vietnam. If it works, don't **** with it.
 
The 9mm round is good for two things. Target practice and high rate of fire weapons, not much else. This is why the majority of police departments now use a .40 as the standard side arm.

I am still a .45 man myself. Combat tested in every WW and up to Vietnam. If it works, don't **** with it.




Kimber dessert warrior is my sidearm. :thumbs:
 
Do big mean guns kill terrorists? Yes.

That does NOT address on whether this is a NECESSARY progression of law enforcement, to have armed police officers walking through the train / subways.

Therefore the answer to that question is; yes, they will deter terrorism.
No; they will not stop terrorism. Nobody can.

By that logic :
Cyanide kills terrorists, so let's give everyone a cyanide pills and anyone that's not a terrorist will survive.
 
Good choice.

Springfield Armory XD-45 here. :shoot

Home defense gun-Mossberg 12G 500 with a flash light attachment

wife has a glock 19 with a light, my son has his chucks and his red belt!

Car Gun-SW MP 40

Carry gun-SW airweight 38 in a galco belt rig

sometimes pack a SW MP 9mm compact in a Galco IWB

heavy stuff for the farm--Rock River M4 or a HK SL-8 with Kahles Night scope
 
That does NOT address on whether this is a NECESSARY progression of law enforcement, to have armed police officers walking through the train / subways.

Why isn't it? Its hardly going to make things worse. If its a measure that brings a degree of stability than its one that must be employed.


By that logic :
Cyanide kills terrorists, so let's give everyone a cyanide pills and anyone that's not a terrorist will survive.

If you can find a way to implement that then maybe it would be a good idea.
 
Why isn't it? Its hardly going to make things worse. If its a measure that brings a degree of stability than its one that must be employed.

No, this is not a statement to 'terrorists'... it's a statement to those who see the people in black uniforms walking around with guns. The statement is 'intimidation' by showing force to an unarmed population.

If you can find a way to implement that then maybe it would be a good idea.
You are joking, right?
 
No, this is not a statement to 'terrorists'... it's a statement to those who see the people in black uniforms walking around with guns. The statement is 'intimidation' by showing force to an unarmed population.

If they are not shooting the unarmed population then they should feel more at peace, as would i, then be intimidated. Why dont you come to the UK where our ***** police officers are trying to protect the public with batons against bad guys with shotguns? Our asbo's could teach the Mujahadeen a lesson. Ask any average Briton if they feel safe and if they feel there police officers can protect them. They go about with stupid sticks wearing body armor which is pretty ironic considering they stand 0 chance of surviving anyway.

You are joking, right?

Yes, your flawed logic was met with some more flawed logic.
 
Last edited:
If they are not shooting the unarmed population then they should feel more at peace, as would i, then be intimidated. Why dont you come to the UK where our ***** police officers are trying to protect the public with batons against bad guys with shotguns? Our asbo's could teach the Mujahadeen a lesson. Ask any average Briton if they feel safe and if they feel there police officers can protect them. They go about with stupid sticks wearing body armor which is pretty ironic considering they stand 0 chance of surviving anyway.

Just walking through the streets in black uniforms, carrying guns IS MEANT as intimidation of the general public.

They don't need to 'start shooting people' with those guns for people to KNOW that those guns aren't JUST for show. If anyone does get 'uppity' then they can be quickly dealt with, and then you'd have what you could call 'intimidation'.

You don't NEED to shoot someone to intimidate... just carrying the guns is an intimidation factor... and unless the organizers of this TRULY believe there's terrorists on every train car. then YES it's to intimidate the public, not the terrorists.

Yes, your flawed logic was met with some more flawed logic.

The point is that : the aim isn't even to TRY and stop 'terrorists', it is sold as 'anti-terror' but the intention is intimidation.
 
Back
Top Bottom