Do police still use shotguns or have they all been replaced by patrol rifles and ARs?
Do police still use shotguns or have they all been replaced by patrol rifles and ARs?
Do police still use shotguns or have they all been replaced by patrol rifles and ARs?
>There are 17,985 police agencies in the United States which include local police departments, county sheriff's offices, state troopers, and federal law enforcement agencies
And every single one of them has it's own procurement process. Some of them still use shotguns as patrol/entry weapons, some of them don't. Even the ones that have gone all in on the AR still keep shotguns around for breaching and less lethal applications.
This, I worked for 2 departments. One issued shotguns for regular patrol officers who had completed the shotgun training course. Most officers weren't interested in it and opted to do the rifle training course so they could carry rifles. You had to attend training and requalify with either choice 4x a year so it was a pain in the ass, but some officers were certified on both...
The other didn't issue shotguns to patrol at all, only SWAT had them. If it was ever needed, there was usually a SWAT guy on or someone would run back to the station or even run home and grab one. We had a .410 that anyone could use to dispatch animals if we had a hit deer that wasn't going to make it. We also had a wave of rabid foxes and skunks that would wind up freaking out in people's neighborhoods and chasing them that we'd have to shoot where the .410 came in handy. Nearly everyone on the department had a rifle since you only needed to do 2 training courses a year to keep it.
Which 410 shotguns? Luv mine
>*Shotgun at close range*
>"Oh shit"
?si=MmwwJnVxzM8Kv4pj
>Wounded
>On his knees
>Not pointing a weapon
>Gets blasted
Man, body cams really have shown how many cops are just looking for an excuse, and sometimes just cap a b***h without one
>Not complying with commands to drop your weapon when the police have already shot you
Sucks to suck I guess
There was no command to drop a weapon. There was
>show us your hands
followed by the officer firing when he failed to comply and ran. No issue with that shoot. At that point he was on his knees, and the officer took him at gunpoint and commanded him to get on the ground. Before he had any chance to react, the goober with the 12GA busted in and blew his brains out with no warning or verbal commands, while he wasn't posing a threat.
The bodycam officer did everything right, the shotgunner is a fricking idiot.
>holding a firearm during a hostage situation
>not posing a threat
Lol, lmao even
>holding a firearm during a hostage situation
If he is, which it's impossible to tell because it's out of the frame, he's not pointing it and is under the control of the officer with the carbine. That
>oh shit
was because the dude with the AR had the situation handled and was not expecting the perp to vaporize in front of him.
Confirmed moronic AND blind. I'm so sorry for you anon
>armchair hostage situation expert
If we were just going by accounts or reports, then sure, that would be fair. But we can literally see exactly what happened anon. You don't have to be an expert to call a bad shoot on film, especially when the guy with the bodycam literally reacted with shock when the other cop lit the dude up.
You just know that mr shotgun swat guy earned everyone's respect that day
Yeah, it might be an unfortunate shoot, but from what that guy had to work with, he chose to eliminate the threat without hesitation in an intense and chaotic hostage situation.
Point man also shot the perp and had him "controlled", but he didn't verbally communicate that with the other guys in the stack.
For all three man knew point man was in a gun-battle with the perp and couldn't get an angle on him, so he made the right call and eliminated the compromise.
You guys act like the second someone stops being aggressive that it's time-out, that a referee blows a whistle and the game is over.
>You guys act like the second someone stops being aggressive that it's time-out
That is literally how it's supposed to work, yes
shots fired
hostage situation
armed perp
if you don't want to get shot in the face with a fricking shotgun by SWAT try not kidnapping people you fricking Black person brains
I forgot attempting intelligent discussion is moronic on the chan, moving along
Nah man, you're just wrong
It's okay, one day you'll have sex.
Damn right bro, give me that hero officer wiener
>For all three man knew point man was in a gun-battle with the perp and couldn't get an angle on him, so he made the right call and eliminated the compromise.
>Yeah, I shot him before assessing the situation, for all I know he had a suitcase nuke, frick it I don't know
Nice
Also here's a dose of reality for you, while point man is controlling the perp, he's holding up the entire fricking stack making it impossible for everyone else to clear the rest of the building.
So while point man was vapor-locked and was in a state of indecision, the rest of his team had to act, and so they did.
yeah bro, vidya is totally comparable to actually doing a raid IRL.
There is no way you actually think I was making an unironic comparison between real life and a video game.
well you posted a screenshot of a vidya score with your post, so yeah
And your interpretation of this was that I was making a totally serious judgement based on SWAT 4
in my opinion in war and basically anything else everyone is a combatant until they are dead. You could spare a dying enemy but there is nothing stopping them from pulling out another weapon and/or attacking when you turn your back. Helping a surrendering enemy is optional in my book. It's not a matter of whether they deserve it or not it's just being smart. Double tap all your opponents.
Don't you need to be +18 to post on this site?
They're cops, anon. There are no "enemies", only people that might do something stupid in the moment. Their mission is to preserve life as much as possible, not just clear an area of bad guys by whatever means necessary.
You are so very wrong. Were you born this stupid or was it an injury that ruined you?
Can you elaborate?
Can you?
Nta, but you don't seem to have any grasp of the role of law enforcement
I don't recall asking for your opinion pleb
Can you be more specific?
You asked for it when you came into the thread shitting stupidity diarrhea in all directions
Do you think people are born police? They are brainwashed to become police? Law enforcement is in the service of the antichrist? Give me something.
>Their mission is to preserve life
preserve INNOCENT life. When a person is a combatant they are not a person anymore. Their rights are forfeit.
>preserve INNOCENT life
No, preserve ALL life, because it's not the cop's role to judge innocence or guilt. I feel like I'm being trolled right now but I still feel compelled to take the bait hook line and sinker
>When a person is a combatant they are not a person anymore
You have a mentally ill perception of law and morality.
He's probably just a kid. I remember unironically thinking the same things he's saying when I was 14.
it's not about law. It's about who's a threat and who isn't.
also you are moronic if you think the guy pointing a gun at you is an innocent individual. You have no sense.
>It's about who's a threat and who isn't
*Posing* a threat is entirely different from *being* an enemy. Somebody posing a threat needs to be shut down for everyone's immediate safety, but as soon as they are no longer an immediate threat, they go right back to being treated like everyone else. They are not a "combatant" who "forfeited their rights".
>also you are moronic if you think the guy pointing a gun at you is an innocent individual
It has nothing to do with what I think, or what anyone else thinks. The law is the law. Judgment is for the courts. The cops are just the grunts whose job it is to get *everyone* out of the situation safely, so they can either go back to their lives or face charges. The fact that they can use force to deal with a threat doesn't make them soldiers, or anybody on the scene a combatant.
Czech cops use mp5s
Did you stop reading after the greentext, you dumbass turboBlack person?
>Some are unhealthy and some aren't,
reading this line, does it seem to reflect what's in greentext or what's after it?
Are you unironically arguing that
>There are a lot of PDs, some use shotguns and some don't
is somehow a stupid answer to
>Do police use shotguns?
no, it's not stupid, it's just an autistic way of answering the question
>Using any amount of specificity in an answer instead of just saying "yes" or "no" is autistic
What the frick.
in your mind, there's only 2 approaches to answering these types of questions, a simple yes or no or an answer like the one I parodied. It's not that any amount of specificity is the issue, that's a strawman.
My homie, I didn't write a dissertation. I copypasted a line from Google for context and then said "some do, some don't".
so
doesn't seem out of place? if so, then I just disagree and decided to make a parody of it. god forbid someone points out something as odd
>god forbid someone points out something as odd
Nobody's stopping you, but it isn't odd so you're going to get weird looks for pointing it out.
I don't care if someone doesn't agree with my sentiment unless they start saying things that don't make sense like any answer more than a simple yes/no can't ever seem too specific. Then it just comes across as any disagreement itself being the issue.
No, its the correct way to answer it. To say simply yes or no completely ignores the PDs that either have fully given up their shotguns or the ones that haven't. Comprehending the most basic form of nuance isn't autistic, however failing to do so is
Yeah, that's how logic works. You can't just make blanket statements about massive populations and be correct.
Oh, wait...hang on. I get it now. You're Indian. Nevermind, I'm wasting my time trying to explain this to you. good luck with your IT certification, or whatever. You'll never have a white girlfriend
do you know what a generalization is?
all other things being equal, a fat person is less healthy than a not fat person. I don't know what's with the desperate cope unless you're a fat frick.
Nobody is coping about being fat, he's talking about the logic behind OPs question and the first answer. I swear the lack of basic comprehension itt is shocking even for this place
In the US, **shotguns haven't entirely been replaced by patrol rifles or automatic rifles**, but their use has definitely declined in recent years. Here's a breakdown:
**Shotguns are still used, but less frequently:**
* **Patrol cars:** It's not common to find shotguns readily accessible in patrol cars anymore. Many agencies have switched to having patrol rifles instead, due to their increased range and precision.
* **Specialized units:** Shotguns are often still used by specialized units like SWAT teams or for breaching doors and other tactical situations.
* **Less-lethal options:** Some shotguns are used with beanbag rounds and other less-lethal munitions for crowd control or de-escalation.
**Reasons for the decline:**
* **Rifle advantages:** Patrol rifles offer more range, better accuracy, and higher rates of fire compared to shotguns. This can be crucial in active shooter situations or engaging suspects at a distance.
* **Public perception:** There's a negative perception around militarization of police, and patrol rifles sometimes fuel that image. While not automatic, the appearance can raise concerns.
* **Specialized training:** Shotguns require specific training due to their spread patterns and potential for overpenetration. This can be an additional cost and burden for departments.
**Overall:**
* Shotguns haven't disappeared, but their role has shifted.
* They're primarily used in specialized situations or with less-lethal options.
* Patrol rifles have become more common for patrol officers due to their range and precision.
**Important note:** Automatic rifles are highly restricted in civilian ownership and practically never used by police due to regulations and safety concerns.
one factor you overlooked is milsurp. I know I've seen videos from big departments like LAPD where they have guys with M16A2s
I'm pretty sure in that video of the cops unintentionally shooting someone in a changing room through a wall, I think one of them had an A2, although it wasn't the shooter.
You're right, **military surplus accessibility is potentially a factor in the decline of shotguns and rise of patrol rifles for police use**, but it's not the only one. Here's a nuanced look:
**Impact of the 1033 Program:**
* The 1033 Program allows the Department of Defense to transfer surplus military equipment, including firearms, to law enforcement agencies at little to no cost.
* This program has been criticized for potentially contributing to the militarization of police, though not all transferred equipment is weaponry.
* While the program initially included assault weapons, those were banned from transfer in 2014. However, certain types of rifles that could be considered patrol rifles remain eligible.
**Accessibility vs. preference:**
* While the 1033 Program grants easier access to military-style equipment, it's not the sole reason for choosing patrol rifles.
* Factors like effectiveness, training, and public perception also play a role.
* Departments might choose to purchase their own patrol rifles even without readily available surplus options.
**Overall:**
* The 1033 Program could be a contributing factor, but it's not the definitive answer.
* Police priorities, perceived effectiveness, and public image also influence weapon choices.
* It's important to consider multiple factors when analyzing the trend.
**Additionally:**
* The future of the 1033 Program is uncertain, with ongoing debate and potential reform proposals.
* The conversation surrounding police use of militarized equipment, including the role of surplus firearms, is complex and multifaceted.
I hope this provides a more comprehensive understanding of the issue!
what the frick is with the asterisks? did you just copy and paste directly from chatGPT?
The humble asterisk (*) packs a surprising punch in the world of writing! Here are some of its most common uses:
**Footnotes & Endnotes:** This is probably the asterisk's most recognizable gig. Placed after a word or phrase, it guides the reader to additional information located at the bottom of the page or at the end of the text. Often, the corresponding footnote also starts with an asterisk.
**Emphasis:** When italics or bold formatting aren't available, asterisks can add oomph to important words or phrases. This is particularly common in online communication like texting and social media. For example: *This is a big deal!*.
**Censorship:** Asterisks can act as a digital black marker, obscuring offensive or sensitive language. They might replace entire words or just specific letters, depending on the desired level of discretion.
**Lists & Bullets:** In informal writing or online environments, asterisks can replace traditional bullet points to mark items in a list. This creates a more casual and streamlined look.
**Actions & Emotions:** In fictional writing, particularly online formats like role-playing games, asterisks are often used to depict character actions and emotions. Think "*smiles warmly*" or "*shrugs*".
**Placeholders:** Sometimes, asterisks stand in for missing information, either as a temporary measure while writing or to indicate something unknown or confidential.
**Other contexts:** In academic writing, asterisks might denote corresponding authors or statistically significant results in tables. Specific fields or software programs might have their own unique uses for the asterisk as well.
I hope this helps! Feel free to ask if you have any further questions about the versatile asterisk.
yeah
Yea they do, you still see them popping up in OIS videos sometimes they just aren't as popular. That one vid where the cop takes like 3 loads of buckshot each to stop a couple yapping pitbulls was pretty good for getting a rise out of the "muh stopping power" crowd but it gets you banned lmao
To stop them, or completely kill them? I have a hard time believing it took three hits with buckshot to before they stopped coming
To incapacitate them to a degree which would have prevented a hominid from being able to return fire, which would be the definition I generally use for "stopping" an attacker as it relates to defense against human attackers
>To incapacitate them to a degree which would have prevented a hominid from being able to return fire
I'm not sure where how this equates to a pitbull attack, but I'll assume you mean the dogs kept attacking until they were shot the third time
yeah I'm sure they weren't just missing or even using less lethal.
For the most part, shotguns have been relegated to specialty roles such as door breaching and hitting guys with sandbags due their ability to use far more diverse ammo types than rifles.
kek at the kid confusing his vidya heavily armed jihadist enemy bot with your average depressed and suicidal working Joe threatening his cheating wife with grandpa's rusted gun