The Role of Automatic Weapons in US Police Armories: Safety, Effectiveness, and Legislation
One of the recurring debates in the United States is why certain fully automatic weapons are allowed to be used by the police. This article examines the legal background, practical considerations, and cultural differences in the use of such weapons by law enforcement, specifically comparing the policies of the United States with those of European countries.
Legal Background
The legality of fully automatic weapons for civilian ownership in the United States is a complex topic. It is indeed legal to own fully automatic weapons, but there are strict restrictions enforced since 1934 and further tightened in 1986. These restrictions drive up the cost of legally obtained automatic weapons to between $10,000 and $400,000. Additionally, owning such weapons involves a federal background check and regular inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
Practical Use and Safety Concerns
Despite the legality, the availability of such weapons is extremely limited. In practice, they are used very rarely. In fact, fully automatic weapons have been involved in only four crimes, two of which were committed by police officers. The primary concern for many individuals is the inappropriate use of such weapons by law enforcement, which can lead to further violence and tragic outcomes. However, the statistics show that those who legally possess automatic weapons never use them in criminal contexts, highlighting their utility in purely defensive roles.
It is also worth noting that most US police officers do not carry automatic weapons. Instead, their firearms are typically stored in armories. This is in stark contrast to some European countries, where submachine guns are common for law enforcement. The debate over appropriate armament for police is influenced by cultural and historical differences. In Germany, for example, police are often equipped with submachine guns, leading to discussions about the potential for unnecessary use of force.
Historical Context and Case Studies
The debate over police armament has been driven by incidents like the North Hollywood shootout in 1997. This incident highlighted the need for police to have adequate firepower. The robbers, heavily armed with homemade body armor, injured 12 police officers and eight civilians in a confrontation lasting over 40 minutes. The police lacked sufficient firepower, as their standard issue guns were not effective against the armor worn by the robbers. This situation sparked a debate about the need to upgrade the firepower of patrol officers.
During the shootout, some officers resorted to appropriating AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident demonstrated the gap in police equipment and the potential for more specialized armament to prevent similar situations in the future.
The North Hollywood shootout incident is a prime example of the need for law enforcement to have sufficient firepower. The fact that standard-issue 9mm pistols and .38 Special revolvers were insufficient against the robbers' body armor underscores the importance of having armaments that can effectively counter modern threats.
Cultural and Tactical Differences
Cultural and tactical differences significantly influence the approach to law enforcement armament. In the US, the prevalence of firearms and the desire for individual protection contribute to a different perspective on the role of law enforcement. In European countries, the dangers of being outgunned by criminals have led to more liberal policies on police armament. The German police, for instance, are often equipped with submachine guns, reflecting a different cultural tolerance and historical context.
Ultimately, the decision to allow fully automatic weapons in police armories must balance safety, necessity, and potential for abuse. The US has a unique legal and cultural framework that shapes its approach to law enforcement equipment. Understanding the historical and practical factors behind these decisions provides insight into why and how law enforcement may carry certain armaments.