https://www.rt.com/usa/335301-ford-bulletproof-doors-police/

Something i saw whilst checking the news, thought it was worth sharing.

To me it seems like Ford are trying to find ways to milk the Government of more money for each police car they produce. Whats wrong with the current bullet proofing? are police forces expecting to receive increase gun violence from guns chambering 7.62mm rounds? 

Damn, if only there was a way to reduce the ammount of guns circulating in the country, that way cars wouldn't need to be turned into tanks... 

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Damn, if only there was a way to reduce the ammount of guns circulating in the country, that way cars wouldn't need to be turned into tanks... 

Can't take away mah Freedumbs.

It's muh second amendment right to carry 40 rifles with 80 round clips.

46 minutes ago, thegreathah said:

Can't take away mah Freedumbs.

It's muh second amendment right to carry 40 rifles with 80 round clips.

The fact that you think its called a clip shows how uneducated you are on the subject, and shows your lack of knowledge necessary to give a valid opinion.

On topic, based on a quick read of the article, it was requested by Middle East and eastern European customers, most likely because of the increased threat of Islamic extremism. Most likely, it is an optional upgrade, and US police forces will probably not go for it as most of their threats come from cheap handguns.

1 minute ago, c13 said:

The fact that you think its called a clip shows how uneducated you are on the subject, and shows your lack of knowledge necessary to give a valid opinion.

*Magazine

Sry bb

8 minutes ago, c13 said:

The fact that you think its called a clip shows how uneducated you are on the subject, and shows your lack of knowledge necessary to give a valid opinion.

I was going to say that, but you said it first 

3 minutes ago, RoegonTV said:

I was going to say that, but you said it first 

I'd love to see both your credentials which make you capable of a discussion on the issue of gun violence.

I made a mistake in the haste of writing a comment on a forum post. I am more than capable of having a discussion on the American obsession of Firearms including large *magazines* and rifles :)

3 minutes ago, thegreathah said:

I'd love to see both your credentials which make you capable of a discussion on the issue of gun violence.

I made a mistake in the haste of writing a comment on a forum post. I am more than capable of having a discussion on the American obsession of Firearms including large *magazines* and rifles :)

14 years shooting experience, 1 year working at a gun shop, 1.5 years in the infantry, countless hours spent researching gun violence.

39 minutes ago, c13 said:

The fact that you think its called a clip shows how uneducated you are on the subject, and shows your lack of knowledge necessary to give a valid opinion.

 

What Google Images say on the gun clips :^)

I believe it's a common way to actually call a magazine, so using that as an argument to discredit his opinion is quite low. My two cents.

16 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

What Google Images say on the gun clips :^)

I believe it's a common way to actually call a magazine, so using that as an argument to discredit his opinion is quite low. My two cents.

A "Clip" is a loading technique which lacks a feeding mechanism, which a magazine has, such as a spring to push ammunition to the chamber. So a clip and a magazine are not interchangeable, they are fundamentally different, it is why they have different names.

10 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

What Google Images say on the gun clips :^)

I believe it's a common way to actually call a magazine, so using that as an argument to discredit his opinion is quite low. My two cents.

Top images are showing actual clips or showing the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Clips hold ammo and are either inserted into a gun and using a gun's internal spring or only hold ammo. Magazines feed ammo into a gun by being attached to a gun and relying on a spring system. Magazines are much higher capacity.

Well you can definitely buy armor-piercing bullets here, so if they can't get that banned I guess it makes sense for the police to prepare.

On 3/11/2016 at 11:53 PM, officerAMR said:

Whats wrong with the current bullet proofing? are police forces expecting to receive increase gun violence from guns chambering 7.62mm rounds? 

1. There is no "current bullet proofing", very few agencies have any kind of ballistic paneling in their vehicles and the ones that do have them as aftermarket upgrades which are pretty much the same ones Ford is now offering.

2. Police forces should always be expecting to take fire from all different types of rounds. Today high powered and large caliber firearms are really easy to get a hold of. Why should we wait for another North Hollywood Shootout to happen for police forces to upgrade their vehicles. I would rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it especially if not having means potentially losing my life.

1 hour ago, l3ubba said:

1. There is no "current bullet proofing", very few agencies have any kind of ballistic paneling in their vehicles and the ones that do have them as aftermarket upgrades which are pretty much the same ones Ford is now offering.

2. Police forces should always be expecting to take fire from all different types of rounds. Today high powered and large caliber firearms are really easy to get a hold of. Why should we wait for another North Hollywood Shootout to happen for police forces to upgrade their vehicles. I would rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it especially if not having means potentially losing my life.

Large caliber and high powered firearms are no easier to get a hold of today than 20 years ago.

The effect of the North Hollywood Shootout was the drastic move towards patrol rifles. Not only has that move prevented loss of officer life, it has prevented a similar situation from occurring again. It has also allowed much more liberal policies on the use of long guns, which allows officers to pull them out from everything to a felony stop to an active shooter.

Vehicles are the worst place to be trapped in a gun fight. The first step during a vehicle ambush is to either get out of the car and fight back or get out of the kill zone to a better spot before getting out. A vehicle would only offer protection on the street, if a fight moves away from the road, then the money spent on ballistic upgrades was useless.

The fact is budgets are tight across the US. While nearly all agencies in the US now have patrol rifles in some degree, money would be much better spent on better outfitting them. Whether it is a rifle inside every car or the next step up, quality optics and flashlights for those rifles. Other much better uses of that money should are more officer firearms training, better equipment, teaching them how to fight around their cars and how to fight to get away from those cars. All of those options would be beneficial in situations besides a vehicle ambush. The sooner the threat is ended, the safer the officer is.

 Additionally, more agencies could authorize the wear/keeping of plate carriers either on person or at least in the car.

Better be prepared for another hollywood heist.. This is so inefficient, I understand how this is relevent due the recent terrorisme, but even if that would happen it would still be quite ineffecient.

22 hours ago, l3ubba said:

1. There is no "current bullet proofing", very few agencies have any kind of ballistic paneling in their vehicles and the ones that do have them as aftermarket upgrades which are pretty much the same ones Ford is now offering.

2. Police forces should always be expecting to take fire from all different types of rounds. Today high powered and large caliber firearms are really easy to get a hold of. Why should we wait for another North Hollywood Shootout to happen for police forces to upgrade their vehicles. I would rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it especially if not having means potentially losing my life.

I understand your points, but its alot of money that could be better spend. For something with such minimal use its seems an inefficient way to spend money, yes it might save a few officers but it wont save all. An officer knows the risk the job brings.

Edited March 14, 201610 yr by S0berDrunk

The simple fact is, making certain guns illegal, only affects legal gun owners. The black market has, does, and will always exist. The same way people still smoke marijuana religiously, and cartels still make their fortunes off heroine. I believe yes, @c13 is very right, they need to invest more in how to react outside of your vehicle, but also, the bullet proofing is a very effective measure to prevent the executions of officers in their vehicles we have seen recently. I think there is nothing wrong with outfitting patrol cars with these options, there will always be bad guys, and they will always have the guns they want.

Edited March 14, 201610 yr by RoegonTV
forgot the word market lolol

On 3/13/2016 at 11:51 PM, c13 said:

Large caliber and high powered firearms are no easier to get a hold of today than 20 years ago.

The effect of the North Hollywood Shootout was the drastic move towards patrol rifles. Not only has that move prevented loss of officer life, it has prevented a similar situation from occurring again. It has also allowed much more liberal policies on the use of long guns, which allows officers to pull them out from everything to a felony stop to an active shooter.

Vehicles are the worst place to be trapped in a gun fight. The first step during a vehicle ambush is to either get out of the car and fight back or get out of the kill zone to a better spot before getting out. A vehicle would only offer protection on the street, if a fight moves away from the road, then the money spent on ballistic upgrades was useless.

The fact is budgets are tight across the US. While nearly all agencies in the US now have patrol rifles in some degree, money would be much better spent on better outfitting them. Whether it is a rifle inside every car or the next step up, quality optics and flashlights for those rifles. Other much better uses of that money should are more officer firearms training, better equipment, teaching them how to fight around their cars and how to fight to get away from those cars. All of those options would be beneficial in situations besides a vehicle ambush. The sooner the threat is ended, the safer the officer is.

 Additionally, more agencies could authorize the wear/keeping of plate carriers either on person or at least in the car.

I didn't say they were easier to get a hold of than 20 years ago. My point was there are many different types of weapons that officers are encountering and they should be fully prepared to counter them. Budgeting is just a matter of opinion, some agencies might find ballistic panels a better option to spend money on. Maybe some agencies already have rifles in every car with all the fanciest optics.

In the end you can say "well what you should do in a certain situation is..." but when you are on the street you sometimes don't have the luxury of going with the best option. Nor can we predict everything that will happen and come up with some plan to counter it. I don't see a problem with providing officers additional protection while they are in their vehicles.

On 3/14/2016 at 8:04 PM, S0berDrunk said:

Better be prepared for another hollywood heist.. This is so inefficient, I understand how this is relevent due the recent terrorisme, but even if that would happen it would still be quite ineffecient.

I understand your points, but its alot of money that could be better spend. For something with such minimal use its seems an inefficient way to spend money, yes it might save a few officers but it wont save all. An officer knows the risk the job brings.

It is inefficient to prepare for something? I don't understand. It is easy for you to say "it will save a few officers but not all so why bother" when you aren't the one putting your life on the line. Yes, officers know and accept the risks of their jobs but that doesn't mean they shouldn't take steps to mitigate the risks.

16 hours ago, l3ubba said:

It is inefficient to prepare for something? I don't understand. It is easy for you to say "it will save a few officers but not all so why bother" when you aren't the one putting your life on the line. Yes, officers know and accept the risks of their jobs but that doesn't mean they shouldn't take steps to mitigate the risks.

In a couple of years Ill try to get into the academy, that means Im willing to take the risk, doesnt it..? I also stated that the money could go to better use. It would be better to spend the money to train officers to respond quicker to gun fire and seek better cover. Not all fire fights take place near your vehicle you know.. Let me also state that I never said "why bother?" I only said the money good go to more effecient causes. 

On 3/21/2016 at 3:23 PM, S0berDrunk said:

In a couple of years Ill try to get into the academy, that means Im willing to take the risk, doesnt it..? I also stated that the money could go to better use. It would be better to spend the money to train officers to respond quicker to gun fire and seek better cover. Not all fire fights take place near your vehicle you know.. Let me also state that I never said "why bother?" I only said the money good go to more effecient causes. 

Until you are actually out there and have experienced your plans don't really mean much (and I'm not trying to say that in an insulting way). That is besides the point though. I like how people are all about spending money on "better training" yet very few people have actually gone through an academy and completed the training themselves or have any real life experience so how do you (and I'm not singling you out specifically, just people in general) know that police need better training. I'm not saying there aren't improvements that could be made but "better training" always seems to be the public's answer to law enforcement issues.

Not all shootouts happen near your vehicle but there are still plenty that do. Are you saying that since there are shootouts that happen away from the patrol car that these ballistic panels are completely useless?

Again, where does your point of reference come from when you say that the money can go to "more efficient causes"? Do you know how each agency spends their money or what kind of equipment and training they have? Each agency is different and have different levels of funding and different equipment requirements. I don't understand why people are hating that Ford is offering additional options to agencies. If there is something that can help keep me safer on the street then I would want it.

Edited March 23, 201610 yr by l3ubba

23 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

Until you are actually out there and have experienced your plans don't really mean much (and I'm not trying to say that in an insulting way). That is besides the point though. I like how people are all about spending money on "better training" yet very few people have actually gone through an academy and completed the training themselves or have any real life experience so how do you (and I'm not singling you out specifically, just people in general) know that police need better training. I'm not saying there aren't improvements that could be made but "better training" always seems to be the public's answer to law enforcement issues.

Not all shootouts happen near your vehicle but there are still plenty that do. Are you saying that since there are shootouts that happen away from the patrol car that these ballistic panels are completely useless?

Again, where does your point of reference come from when you say that the money can go to "more efficient causes"? Do you know how each agency spends their money or what kind of equipment and training they have? Each agency is different and have different levels of funding and different equipment requirements. I don't understand why people are hating that Ford is offering additional options to agencies. If there is something that can help keep me safer on the street then I would want it.

They simple cost too much in my opinion. Yes its indeed useful in some situations, but it has a very limited use in my opinion. I wont go into this any further. There is abviously not going to come an end to this argument if we continue. Lets just say we both have different opinions on this subject.

Edited March 23, 201610 yr by S0berDrunk