PDA

View Full Version : Boston Mayor Rejects Idea to Arm Police Officers With Military Assault Weapons


Dust Monkey
May 30, 2009, 04:22 PM
I opined in another thread that citizens would eventually wake up and assert their views on the issue of the militarization of police. Well. This just might be the first of many such cities just saying no. When citizens realize that they control the purse strings and the elected officials, things will change.

http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523388,00.html?test=latestnews

BOSTON — The Boston Police Department wants to arm neighborhood patrol officers with high-powered military assault weapons, but the mayor doesn't think it's such a good idea.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino said Friday he will not approve a police department plan to put semiautomatic M-16 rifles in the hands of regular patrol officers. But Menino says he's open to giving them to "specialized units."

The police recently obtained 200 M-16s free of charge from the U.S. military and had planned to give them to dozens of officers for their patrols after training them to use the rifles.

However, some community leaders criticized the lack of public notice and questioned the reasoning behind arming district officers with M-16s when the city's SWAT team already has such weapons.

SwampYankee
May 30, 2009, 05:17 PM
I guess the question I have is: when would they be used? I know of a few PD's that have AR-15's but they stay in the trunk of the police car unless the SHTF. And these are not SWAT units, these are just patrol cars. Essentially, they replaced shotguns with AR's.

Now if a beat cop is walking around the streets of Boston carrying an AR-15, that is a whole other kettle of fish. But I don't have any problem with them in the car....

Dust Monkey
May 30, 2009, 06:03 PM
I dont have a problem with the rifles being in squad cars or in the trunks of squad cars. I am just pointing out that citizens can do something about the increasing militarization of police. Citizens can say no. They can pressure local elected officials not to sign off on it. Its not about police having ARs or not. Its the fact that maybe, just maybe, citizens are waking up.

SteelJM1
May 30, 2009, 06:30 PM
I'm one for the police not needing rifles. In the rare chance that there's a situation that warrants the need for battle rifles and automatic submachine guns and such, it would be bad enough to let the highly trained SWAT teams take care of it. Not bashing on the street cops, but they have a hard enough qualifying with their pistols. They don't need more on their plate for the rare chance that they might use it maybe.

armsmaster270
May 30, 2009, 06:50 PM
Tell that to the officers in LA who had to go against bank robbers better equipted than the officers. It takes time to roll out SWAT and time means lifes, civilian and police.

johnwilliamson062
May 30, 2009, 07:02 PM
I am fine with police officers being permitted to be armed as well as citizens. I could keep an AR-15 in my trunk or even openly carry it, although this might cause some unwanted attention. No reason for the police not to be allowed. They are citizens without felony records after all.

VA9mm
May 30, 2009, 07:14 PM
Let him watch the N. Hollywood shootout and then say patrol officers shouldn't have rifles. Before that shootout occurred the Police had requested patrol rifles and that was denied if I remember correctly.

OuTcAsT
May 30, 2009, 08:11 PM
Let him watch the N. Hollywood shootout

Tell that to the officers in LA who had to go against bank robbers

No offense guys but, this example is getting quite tiresome, if this is the only situation in 13 years that has pitted street cops against an unfair advantage then I would submit that perhaps the need is not that great.

I have no problem with officers being issued AR-15s as a trunk gun, sometimes a handgun just ain't enough, But, I cannot see the need to issue M-16s to street cops. FA fire should not be that "necessary" for peace officers.

Michael Anthony
May 30, 2009, 09:33 PM
I am confused. The article clearly says "M-16", but it also describes them as "semiautomatic." I'm not exactly sure what they mean by a "semiautomatic M-16." Maybe it's the writer's mistake, or maybe they are converted to semiautomatic only.

Outcast, I agree somewhat with you. Full auto has a very narrow application in law enforcement. I wouldn't call it a "need" for a patrol officer to carry a fully automatic weapon, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to turn down ones that were donated.

I could see where one would think the potential for misuse is high, but a police officer already has a full compliment of tools (up to and including a pen) that if misused could ruin someone's life. If you are well trained and know where and when to use "da switch" why should you be limited in the amount of firepower you have access to? It is hard for me to say that Bob can't have it because Steve might screw it up.

To SteelJM1, your logic is the same used against private gun ownership and carrying: none.

I'm one for the police not needing rifles.

Ha, we agree there. I'm for them not needing them as well. I think what you mean is you are for the police not having them.

In the rare chance that there's a situation that warrants the need of your home defense or concealed carry weapon, better let the police handle it. Just pray that they don't need rifles to handle it.:rolleyes:

B. Lahey
May 30, 2009, 10:30 PM
All cops should have rifles. Easier to hit with and those hits usually give a better result.

Handguns should be a last resort, not the first option.

I could care less if the sight of a rifle makes some people soil themselves and screech. I wouldn't have expected that reaction from "gun people" but life is full of surprises. I guess antis aren't the only ones frightened of scary-looking arms.

johnwilliamson062
May 30, 2009, 10:31 PM
They can get a full auto surplus rifle from DoD a lot cheaper than they can buy a new AR-15. No reason for them to pay for something they can get very cheap or free.

gc70
May 30, 2009, 10:52 PM
I opined in another thread that citizens would eventually wake up and assert their views on the issue of the militarization of police.

Tom Menino probably did not need any grumbling from citizens groups to reach his conclusion about "military assault weapons." Some of Menino's past rhetoric suggests that he may be an anti-gun true-believer who would disarm the police (except for "specialized units") if he thought it was politically feasible.

bigger hammer
May 30, 2009, 11:00 PM
I'm one for the police not needing rifles. In the rare chance that there's a situation that warrants the need for battle rifles and automatic submachine guns and such, it would be bad enough to let the highly trained SWAT teams take care of it.

In the N. Hollywood shootout that's already been brought up in this thread, the shooting went on for quite some time with quite a few officers being injured before the SWAT team arrive and ended it. That only happened so quickly because they were in a training evolution at a nearby location. If they'd had to respond from their station, as is usually the case, it might have taken an additional 30 minutes. In all likelihood many more officers would have been injured and one of the suspects may have even escaped! He was in the process of hijacking a truck when they arrived on scene and stopped him.

Not bashing on the street cops, but they have a hard enough qualifying with their pistols. They don't need more on their plate for the rare chance that they might use it maybe.

It's a simple matter to allow only those officers who are proficient with a particular weapon, in this case the AR-15/M-16 carry it. Generalizations like yours, " … they have a hard enough [time] qualifying with their pistols …" are out of place in such a discussion and because they're so general are usually wrong. I never had the slightest bit of trouble qualifying "with my pistol" or any other weapon I carried or had available.

IN FACT most officers find it far easier to shoot a rifle faster and more accurately than they do a handgun.

bigger hammer
May 30, 2009, 11:01 PM
No offense guys but, this example is getting quite tiresome, if this is the only situation in 13 years that has pitted street cops against an unfair advantage then I would submit that perhaps the need is not that great.

What's getting REALLY tiresome is this rather regular sniveling about the "militarization of the police." The North Hollywood shootout is hardly the only example of a situation where rifles carried by patrol officers would have been helpful but it was the impetus for many agencies to get such guns. And it was one of the biggest such incidents. Other incidents are over quickly and often with the officer on the losing end.

I have no problem with officers being issued AR-15s as a trunk gun, sometimes a handgun just ain't enough, But, I cannot see the need to issue M-16s to street cops. FA fire should not be that "necessary" for peace officers.

I fail to see much difference. Most of the M-16's that are issued to street officers are set up to fire only on semi-auto. But I see no problem with having the ability to select FA if needed.

What are the objections to this? Why is semi auto OK but FA is not?

gc70
May 30, 2009, 11:21 PM
Why is semi auto OK but FA is not?

Because machineguns are SO much more deadly than normal guns.

Sorry, that was a Brady quote.

OuTcAsT
May 30, 2009, 11:22 PM
bigger hammer

Respectfully Sir, You once again attempt to credit me with statements that I have not made, I do not intend to be baited into a genital waving contest over a topic that has been all but declared "verboten" and not under discussion here. Again, please point to any mention of "militarization" by me, in this thread or kindly refrain from dragging me into the folds of your wadded panties.

We have differing opinions and, that is the way it is.

On topic, I cannot see where fully automatic fire would be needed by anyone other than "specialized" Police units , unless they are going to be available to other civilians as well.

gc70
May 30, 2009, 11:27 PM
On topic, I cannot see where fully automatic fire would be needed by anyone other than "specialized" Police units, unless they are going to be available to other civilians as well.

This logic could also be used to argue that even specialized units do not need FA weapons since the numerical superiority of specialized units could compensate for the lack of FA firepower.

johnwilliamson062
May 30, 2009, 11:28 PM
I never had the slightest bit of trouble qualifying "with my pistol" or any other weapon I carried or had available.

and most officers are not registered on a firearms forum... This is like the 'I kept my AR running in Iraq, so every grunt can' argument. I don't think MOST officers have trouble with their pistols, but there are some who really should not have pistols in the first place, at least not live ammunition.

IN FACT most officers find it far easier to shoot a rifle faster and more accurately than they do a handgun.
Probably true, but not many of their handguns have the ballistics of a 223. 9mm doesn't exactly go through frame houses all that well. 223 on the other hand has a lot better chance.

I also agree the west hollywood card is overplayed. I think it is very likely we will not see a similar situation before the zombies/communists/mall ninjas, or even the retired mall ninja communist zombie hoard, take over.

OuTcAsT
May 30, 2009, 11:35 PM
This logic could also be used to argue that even specialized units do not need FA weapons since the numerical superiority of specialized units could compensate for the lack of FA firepower.

A very good point.

not many of their handguns have the ballistics of a 223. 9mm doesn't exactly go through frame houses all that well. 223 on the other hand has a lot better chance.

And given we are discussing an urban environment,I would think that FA .223 fire would be very cumbersome with respect to controlling overpenetration.

gc70
May 30, 2009, 11:38 PM
I also agree the west hollywood card is overplayed.

I also agree that West Hollywood is overplayed... but for different reasons.

In a highly urbanized environment, we generally expect a large number of police to be able to respond to a situation in a short period of time. West Hollywood was a rare example where that type of response did not work well. However, in rural environments (such as some of the sparsely populated Western or Plains states), backup may not be a realistic option, the bad guy may (probably) have a rifle and a long approach field of fire, and a patrol rifle may be the only viable option.

HarrySchell
May 31, 2009, 11:40 AM
Given that "assault weapons" are rarely used to commit crimes, I don't see a com,pelling need for every officer to have a FA weapon.

When you consider that the nominal hit rate for police with handguns is about 1 every 6 rounds fired, I don't like the idea of an FA weapon as first response to an incident, the calm collected mind to fire in short bursts doesn't seem to be a trait the average LEO would acquire, given what they do with handguns. But there is a lot I don't know about the subject.

However, we are likely closer than before to a Mumbai-type engagement, where M4's or M16's might be crucial. I think that scenario is a long way off but who knows. The drug cartels have brought such violence to our borders.

One of my firearms instructors took down a very crazy guy with a knife from about 7 feet with a single burst from an MP5. In the circumstances, it was the best path, and the other officers on scene held fire. A 12 Guage could have done the same, but the suppressor on the MP5 likely kept anyone else from shooting. This guy is really good.

Motorcycle officers around here carry M4's on their bikes. It is not comforting to see, if there really is that much danger out there, why can't I have a carry permit (I am in CA)? And are these guys schooled well enough to handle the weapon so to exert just enough force to stop an incident, since the rounds carry 2-300 yards? Or will they go to spray and pray?

JMortensen
May 31, 2009, 12:24 PM
The West Hollywood shootout proved only one thing: cops make horrible choices when it comes to their firearms. Well, that and they can't take headshots. They actually went to a gun store that I used to frequent (B&B) and they got some rifles to "level the playing field". B&B has pretty much any gun you could imagine. What did they choose out of the nearly limitless possibilities? AR-15's. This was about the dumbest choice they could have made, in my opinion. Not because your typical AR isn't accurate enough to make the headshot that was needed, but because these idiot cops didn't seem interested in taking careful aim and ending the deal quickly. It seemed to me that they would rather put lots of bullets on target but none of them accurately enough to get the job done. All they needed was two headshots to end the whole thing. Remington 700, Ruger 77, Win 70, any decent quality deer rifle could have ended this thing quickly. Their 12 gauge shotguns aimed at the head feet or hands could have ended it quickly. I remember watching it at home thinking "I could DRIVE DOWN THERE and pop these guys in the head before these idiot cops will get the job done."

I know I know, there were officers down everywhere and the guys had automatic weapons and blah blah blah. All of that doesn't change the fact that SOMEWHERE during the confrontation a single shot to the head of either of the robbers would have ended the whole thing. Eventually it did. As I recall they both had HUNDREDS of rounds in their body armor, and when it ended there were only two shots really mattered: one perp was shot in the ankle which finally brought him down where he bled out on the street from other wounds, and the other one was stopped by a single shot to the head. After the 45 minute debacle there were awards given and there was a lot of news in SoCal about how traumatized the cops were. Ridiculous...

JMortensen
May 31, 2009, 12:49 PM
Looks like I gave the police a little too much credit in my last post. I was just reading some articles online and apparently one of those guys offed himself with a headshot.

Superhouse 15
May 31, 2009, 01:10 PM
They are semi-automatic M16s. My local agency has a few dozen of them, old M16A1s. There is a kit to remove the full auto function. The department armorers converted them all. There is also a part made that fits between the grip and the lower receiver that has a metal projection that blocks the selector from going to the FA or Burst position. Of course, that isn't "cop proof":D It can be removed in the field with a screwdriver and some time.

Last month a local cop armed with a handgun was ambushed by a dirtbag with an illegal SBR AR15 and a few dozen other rifles, including a Barrett .50. The officer lost his eye in the shootout, but survived. It happens all the time, just because it doesn't get the North Hollywood publicity, don't assume it never occurs.

VA9mm
May 31, 2009, 01:22 PM
He put the 9mm under his chin and shot himself, simultaneously he took a cross torso shot I believe that went through his spinal cord.

Had the bad guys actually aimed their weapons and not just sprayed in every direction there would have been a lot of people killed.

If the officers would have been allowed to have 12ga slugs it could have ended a lot sooner IMHO.

VA9mm
May 31, 2009, 01:27 PM
I think officers should have a rifle or some kind of long arm in their cruiser. I sure as hell know I would want one.

A 12ga with slugs would fit the bill in my opinion as well. Slug effective range 35meters buckshot 25meters.

44 AMP
May 31, 2009, 01:37 PM
Why not just give them .30-30s? Winchester (oh, wait, they're gone, OK, Marlin) lever guns are short, handy, accurate to a couple hundred yards (in trained hands), and provide all the power needed to overcome barriers or body armor.

Plus they have the added benefit of NOT holding 20-30 rnds of ammo, and firing only a single shot at a time! One AIMED shot beats the heck out of 30rnds sprayed as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

If a handgun or shotgun isn't enough, and a rifle is needed, a .30-30 will do the job just fine until SWAT gets there with their sniper scopes and long range guns. Sure, it isn't modern and sexy, and it fails the movie image of massive cover fire horribly, but as something able to do the job, if the shooter does theirs, it works. And it isn't military looking.

In the oft repeated N.Hollywood shootout, if just one of those cops had a .30-30, and knew how to use it, odds are it would have turned out differently. The patrol officer should have access to a rifle, for those rare times when it is needed. But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet!
If you just gotta have a semi auto, then the M1 Garand is a fine choice. Half a dozen enbloc clips of ball ammo doesn't take up much space in the trunk, and should serve to handle just about anything (at least until the SWAT gets there), without encouraging officers to spray and pray!
Just my opinion, and worth what you pay for it!

gc70
May 31, 2009, 01:48 PM
But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet!

After making some very good points, this summary sounds a lot like Brady talking points. We routinely object to Brady claims revolving around the appearance of weapons ("And it isn't military looking."), as well as ballistic differences between different rounds (.223 (http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/cfrdetail.aspx?symbol=USA223R1&cart=MjIzIFJlbWluZ3Rvbg==) with 1282 ft.lbs. at 3240 fps is apparently an objectionalbe "small caliber high speed bullet" but 30-06 (http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/cfrdetail.aspx?symbol=USA3006&cart=MzAtMDYgU3ByaW5nZmllbGQ=) with 2976 ft.lbs. at 3020 fps is "a fine choice").

Hkmp5sd
May 31, 2009, 01:53 PM
Why don't we let police departments decide what firearms they need themselves?

Civilians should not be picking the firearms cops carry. Sure, maybe you carried an M16 back in the Army, have read "The Art of War" and debated tactics with Clausewitz, but you cannot know the needs of every LEO in this country.

How would you like it if "<insert special interest group here>" were allowed to choose what firearm was appropriate for civilian CCW in your state? How many rounds of ammo you could carry? What type of ammo you carry?

Let people make decisions for themselves.

I would rather hear that every cop in the US had an M16 in the trunk than hear even once that cops are "out gunned" by badguys. As we see in this case, the only time cops are out gunned is when politicians restrict their access to firearms.


And yes, I think the '86 machinegun ban totally sucks. No reason to limit the firearms police carry.

AZ Med18
May 31, 2009, 03:17 PM
I am ok with Peace Officers carrying what I can carry and buy with ease.

SWAT can go all out rocket launchers go for it. They spend ample amount of time trainging or they should.

Patrol officer can have his AR15 or M16 that cannot be readily converted to FA.

OuTcAsT
May 31, 2009, 09:04 PM
I am ok with Peace Officers carrying what I can carry and buy with ease.


Exactly.

armsmaster270
May 31, 2009, 09:55 PM
Superhouse15:
The metal Selector blocks you refer to are made of aluminum and can be snapped off with your thumb, I was an armorer for the N.G. during the Rodney King Riots and had to put one on every M-16 our M.P.'s carried while at the riots, then take them off after we got home..

Also If you are going to use a large cal rifle instead of the small cal I would suggest light expamding bullets instead of Military Ball to prevent overpenetration as much as possible. Actually we should have had soft point ammo at the riots for the same reason we weren't covered by the rules of war.

Wagonman
May 31, 2009, 11:20 PM
No offense guys but, this example is getting quite tiresome, if this is the only situation in 13 years that has pitted street cops against an unfair advantage then I would submit that perhaps the need is not that great.

We are taking AKs and shotguns of the street with more and more regularity in Chicago. I can get numbers if someone cares. New Year's Eve sounds like downtown Mosul in my westside district.

But, I cannot see the need to issue M-16s to street cops. FA fire should not be that "necessary" for peace officers.


FA fire is something that has very limited to no value in the urban setting so if you can get M-16 with the EVIL FA selector disabled does that pass muster with you, because it would be fine with me.

Isn't the M-16 the same as a AR-15 as a M-9 is the same as a Beretta 92FS?

Outcast what is your beef with having a patrol rifle locked in the car?

Dust Monkey, this militarization thing is getting tiresome.

Michael Anthony
May 31, 2009, 11:44 PM
Wagonman:

When people hear "M-16" they normally assume full auto. The article does say "semiautomatic m-16s" but given most news articles gross mislabeling of firearm related items I cannot say what they really mean.

Also you said:

Outcast what is your beef with having a patrol rifle locked in the car?

Outcasts posts on the topic started with:

I have no problem with officers being issued AR-15s as a trunk gun

His stance was that patrol rifles were a Good Thing (tm) but questioned the validity of full auto weapons for patrol officers.

Dust Monkey
May 31, 2009, 11:50 PM
Yes I agree. The militarization of police is getting tiresome. I am tired of seeing it and sick of what may be the end result in the future. As far as me stopping from taking or opining on the subject, ain't gonna happen. So either debate me on it or place me on your ignore list.

Wagonman
June 1, 2009, 12:08 AM
Yes I agree. The militarization of police is getting tiresome. I am tired of seeing it and sick of what may be the end result in the future. As far as me stopping from taking or opining on the subject, ain't gonna happen. So either debate me on it or place me on your ignore list.

I meant the droning about the supposed militarization of the police, but I think you knew that.

I have debated the subject, other people with skin or ahammer in the game have also. Like it or not Law Enforcement is a Para-Military profession and all of your debate points aren't going to change that simple fact


When people hear "M-16" they normally assume full auto.


I stipulated that FA has almost no role in urban policing. I don't see the logic in saying M-16 bad Ar-15 good.

BobbyT
June 1, 2009, 01:05 AM
I have no problem with officers being armed with a rifle that'll let them handle whatever situation they face.

I'm of the opinion that cops should have the choice of being armed up to as well as a civilian.

So that means policy should be the police may choose whatever pistol or rifle your typical civilian can easily and affordably acquire and carry. I respect the job they do but they are human. If any restriction on private citizens applied to the police as well, you'd have a surefire way to make sure the police stayed on our side instead of taking the "Only Ones" attitude in urban hellholes like Chicago, DC, NYC, Philly, etc.

44 AMP
June 1, 2009, 01:08 AM
But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet!

After making some very good points, this summary sounds a lot like Brady talking points. We routinely object to Brady claims revolving around the appearance of weapons ("And it isn't military looking."), as well as ballistic differences between different rounds (.223 with 1282 ft.lbs. at 3240 fps is apparently an objectionalbe "small caliber high speed bullet" but 30-06 with 2976 ft.lbs. at 3020 fps is "a fine choice").


I don't object to the appearance of the AR/M16 rifles, as such, but I think the PR people working in MA might. No, the reason I object to the M16 class of carbines is the 5.56mm round used. The small caliber high speed bullet is apparently working well enough in combat (although there are still opinions to the contrary), but other than the fact that shooting people is involved, the police do not engage in combat.

Modern combat is about firepower, throwing large amounts of flying metal in the direction of the enemy. Full auto fire, belt fed weapons, artillery and airstrikes. This is not something our police should be emulating, in whole or part. The military's concept of collateral damage is slightly different that what should be in use on our streets.

A .30-30, .30-06, or even larger caliber round (I like the .45-70) have long proven record of delivering stopping power that the .22 cal lacks. Police shoot to stop, not kill. Or they should. Larger caliber rounds tend to stop determined people better than smaller ones. Its that simple.

While adequate for war, I feel the small bore round (5.56mm) will prove less than optimum for a police (or self defense) situation. This isn't meant to imply that it won't work, just that overall, as my sig line says....

mskdgunman
June 1, 2009, 01:32 AM
I would think by now that we would all know the the MSM can't tell the difference between a full auto M-16 and a semi AR-15 and neither can most politicians. They're all "assault rifles" to them. I think there is some confusion in the article. I agree with everbody who says that FA has limited (if any) value in law enforcement work. A local PD received a few dozen M-16A1's a few years back and they removed the FA FCG and replaced them with SA. The PD had to maintain the FA parts but they are kept in the armory. Not what I'd call readily convertable to FA.

As for some folks who believe that the BOA shootout example is getting tiresome, I'm sure that the anti-gunners feel the same way about some of our arguments regarding our right to have firearms in the first place. I'm a cop and as pro-gun as they come and I find many of the attitudes here towards cops to be less then cordial. I know, I know.....all us cops are part of the conspiracy to overthrow the constitution and turn the US into one big police state....now THAT is getting tiresome.

Look up Norco bank robbery for just another example of BG's with automatic weapons. I'm sure that there are many more if you look hard enought. BOA was just the most publicized.

Also, should I ever need someone to help me out with a 40-50 yard headshot (with a handgun) on a moving BG, behind cover who is spraying full auto suppressive fire with an AK or a HK-91, I'll be sure to call on JMortensen. I do agree that slugs could have possibly ended the situation but, departments being what they are, none were issued or approved for use.

It seems that some here would have all us cops be like Barney fife and that would be fine if we all lived in Mayberry but we don't. Will I ever use my patrol rifle at work? Probably not but I sure as **** don't need a politician telling me I can't carry it. Just like the members on here who would go ballistic should they be forced to give up their (insert favorite firearm here) because of a politician.

It's funny that when you go to France and get off the plane, there are soldiers and gendarmerie standing around with FMAS rifles and no one pays attention but put a soldier or a cop in and American airport with an M-16 or MP-5 and everyone thinks the world is coming to an end. You would think that it would be the French who would be all uptight over the blatant display of firepower instead of Americans with our culture being tied so closely to guns. Go figure.

To steal a quote I've seen on this forum "it's better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it". When you can stop the militarization of the bad guys, we (cops) will gladly follow suit but no one seems to know how to do that. Of course, we could just ban all the guns and that would make it all better (Sarcasam!)

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 01:34 AM
Respectfully Sir, You once again attempt to credit me with statements that I have not made, I do not intend to be baited into a genital waving contest over a topic that has been all but declared "verboten" and not under discussion here. Again, please point to any mention of "militarization" by me, in this thread or kindly refrain from dragging me into the folds of your wadded panties.

This is the same discussion wearing a different hat. It's obviously not necessary that you use the phrase "militarization of the police" for it to be the topic of discussion.

On topic, I cannot see where fully automatic fire would be needed by anyone other than "specialized" Police units , unless they are going to be available to other civilians as well.

Having been trained in both semi and FA with many weapons systems, I know that you're wrong. The question of effectiveness has nothing to do with the question of such weapons being available to civilians.

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 01:35 AM
Earlier I wrote, I never had the slightest bit of trouble qualifying "with my pistol" or any other weapon I carried or had available.

and most officers are not registered on a firearms forum...

You made this statement, Not bashing on the street cops, but they have a hard enough qualifying with their pistols … generalizing that "street cops" have problems qualifying with their "pistols." That is simply not a fact. Some have the problem but most do not.

This is like the 'I kept my AR running in Iraq, so every grunt can' argument. I don't think MOST officers have trouble with their pistols, but there are some who really should not have pistols in the first place, at least not live ammunition.

This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. As I've already written, It's a simple matter to allow only those officers who are proficient with a particular weapon, in this case the AR-15/M-16, carry it."

Earlier I wrote, IN FACT most officers find it far easier to shoot a rifle faster and more accurately than they do a handgun.

Probably true, but not many of their handguns have the ballistics of a 223. 9mm doesn't exactly go through frame houses all that well. 223 on the other hand has a lot better chance.

Actually 9mm with the HP ammo commonly carried by police officers goes through many more walls than does a .223 with the right ammunition. The 9mm HP hole fills up with wallboard, making it the near equivalent of hardball ammunition. I built walls on my range to demonstrate this to my brass.

I also agree the west hollywood card is overplayed. I think it is very likely we will not see a similar situation before the zombies/communists/mall ninjas, or even the retired mall ninja communist zombie hoard, take over.

I predict that we'll see similar situations again long before the zombie march. And I predict that we'll see hundreds of situations where a long gun is a better choice than a handgun every year.

Most LE shooting situations happen by surprise and so the officer is forced to use the only weapon at hand, his handgun. But many times the nature of the incident is known before arrival at the scene, making the long gun the weapon of choice before arrival.

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 01:36 AM
And given we are discussing an urban environment,I would think that FA .223 fire would be very cumbersome with respect to controlling overpenetration.

It depends completely on the ammunition selected. If this is a concern, and it often is, simply selecting ammunition that can be stopped by a single layer of wallboard or two, is easily done.

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 01:37 AM
Given that "assault weapons" are rarely used to commit crimes, I don't see a com,pelling need for every officer to have a FA weapon.

Boston PD has just over 2,000 officers. Issuing 200 rifles is hardly "every officer." And quite a few news stories have these guns being converted to "semi-auto fire" only.

When you consider that the nominal hit rate for police with handguns is about 1 every 6 rounds fired, I don't like the idea of an FA weapon as first response to an incident

Again, you've assumed that these weapons will be FA and that's not the case. You also ignore the fact that most people find it far easier to accurately shoot a rifle than a handgun. Do you have any statistics the for "nominal hit rate for police" using rifles?

However, we are likely closer than before to a Mumbai-type engagement, where M4's or M16's might be crucial. I think that scenario is a long way off but who knows. The drug cartels have brought such violence to our borders.

I think we're getting into a discussion of "far better to have it and not need it, v. not having it and needing it."

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 01:39 AM
The West Hollywood shootout proved only one thing: cops make horrible choices when it comes to their firearms.

Often such decisions are made by administrators, not the officers themselves.

Well, that and they can't take headshots.

I'll agree here. I think with all the officers present that at least a couple of them, at any given moment would have had the time to take a headshot without worry of being shot at themselves. Yet no one did. This may be a hole in the training where such shots are only taken at fairly close ranges and that was not the case here.

They actually went to a gun store that I used to frequent (B&B) and they got some rifles to "level the playing field". B&B has pretty much any gun you could imagine. What did they choose out of the nearly limitless possibilities? AR-15's. This was about the dumbest choice they could have made, in my opinion. Not because your typical AR isn't accurate enough to make the headshot that was needed, but because these idiot cops didn't seem interested in taking careful aim and ending the deal quickly. It seemed to me that they would rather put lots of bullets on target but none of them accurately enough to get the job done. [Emphasis added]

Aside from the obvious rudeness, do you have any evidence to support this opinion? I'd bet that anyone of them would have preferred to deliver a couple of head shots to end this incident but they weren't capable of doing so with their handguns or it didn't occur to them. But this is way off the topic.

All they needed was two headshots to end the whole thing. Remington 700, Ruger 77, Win 70, any decent quality deer rifle could have ended this thing quickly.

It's quite possible that they chose the AR-15 because of its similarities to their military experience with the M-16. I don't know this for a fact but I think it's a pretty good possibility.

Their 12 gauge shotguns aimed at the head feet or hands could have ended it quickly.

Perhaps and perhaps not. The crooks were beyond the effective range of the 00 buck that the officers were carrying.

I remember watching it at home thinking "I could DRIVE DOWN THERE and pop these guys in the head before these idiot cops will get the job done." [Emphasis added]

MORE rudeness. Somehow I doubt that if you were standing face–to–face with any of the officers involved in this incident that you'd be calling them "idiots."

I know I know, there were officers down everywhere and the guys had automatic weapons and blah blah blah. All of that doesn't change the fact that SOMEWHERE during the confrontation a single shot to the head of either of the robbers would have ended the whole thing.

I agree.

Eventually it did. As I recall they both had HUNDREDS of rounds in their body armor, and when it ended there were only two shots really mattered: one perp was shot in the ankle which finally brought him down where he bled out on the street from other wounds

Emile Matasareanu suffered as many (according to some reports) as 29 wounds. It's little known but both suspects had taken drugs to calm their nerves. That also help them ignore their injuries. The autopsy ruled that the fatal shot was to his thigh. A SWAT officer firing a FA M-16 under his vehicle struck the suspect in the lower legs. That firing continued until Matasareanu fell to the ground and dropped his weapon. Interesting that it was an FA M-16 that finally ended the incident in light of several folks arguing that FA has no place for the street police officer. In this case it was wielded by a SWAT officer.

and the other one was stopped by a single shot to the head.

He was wounded, having his thumb shot off. His rifle malfunctioned and (possibly because of the thumb injury) he was unable to clear it. He went to his handgun, fired several rounds and then shot himself. This occurred at about the same time that the fatal round, fired by an officer, arrived, severing his spinal cord.

After the 45 minute debacle there were awards given and there was a lot of news in SoCal about how traumatized the cops were. Ridiculous...

Bravery under fire, even if mistakes are made is "Ridiculous?" PTSD is "ridiculous?"

It's really a shame that you weren't there. We all know that you would have handled the situation in a few seconds saving us all that time and blood. The quality of your Monday Morning Quarterbacking, made from the comfort and safety of your living room, really is quite extraordinary!

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 01:41 AM
Why not just give them .30-30s? Winchester (oh, wait, they're gone, OK, Marlin) lever guns are short, handy, accurate to a couple hundred yards (in trained hands), and provide all the power needed to overcome barriers or body armor.

Plus they have the added benefit of NOT holding 20-30 rnds of ammo, and firing only a single shot at a time!

If you know someone who's donating 200 of them to the police, please let us know. The M-16's are free.

One AIMED shot beats the heck out of 30rnds sprayed as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

If a handgun or shotgun isn't enough, and a rifle is needed, a .30-30 will do the job just fine until SWAT gets there with their sniper scopes and long range guns. Sure, it isn't modern and sexy, and it fails the movie image of massive cover fire horribly, but as something able to do the job, if the shooter does theirs, it works. And it isn't military looking.

In the oft repeated N.Hollywood shootout, if just one of those cops had a .30-30, and knew how to use it, odds are it would have turned out differently. The patrol officer should have access to a rifle, for those rare times when it is needed. But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet!

If you just gotta have a semi auto, then the M1 Garand is a fine choice. Half a dozen enbloc clips of ball ammo doesn't take up much space in the trunk, and should serve to handle just about anything (at least until the SWAT gets there), without encouraging officers to spray and pray!

Yaknow this sounds an awful lot like a typical argument of those who would ban "assault weapons." Basically it's the "one kind of gun is OK but those that look like military firearms are not." It doesn’t work for them and it doesn't work here either.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 1, 2009, 06:33 AM
Personally, I am all for anything that exposes more people to the idea that AR15s are not lethal death rays that can kill you just by looking at them. The more police understand that, the better it will be for all black rifle owners - and having the weapon widely used by patrol officers and not just special teams doesn't hurt the "in common use" argument either.

Besides, how I can object to police being as "militarized" as I am? I own a rifle and here in Texas I have the same freedom to carry it around loaded in my vehicle if that suits me. So I can hardly complain about the police doing the same.

Al Norris
June 1, 2009, 08:16 AM
This thread, and many like it, have one thing in common: Many ordinary folks simply don't want the police to have access to the exact same weaponry that they themselves have (or want).

You use the same tired arguments, against arming the police, as the anti-gunners use against you. Rather hypocritical, don't you think?

You're against the police having FA capabilities, in these threads, yet on others, you wail against government FA restrictions on yourself. Again, hypocritical.

Here's the deal. I want my police officers better armed than me, which means they are better armed than the crooks. I want them better trained in both defensive and offensive fire than me, which means they are better trained than the crooks.

I would also like to see more citizens partake of ride-alongs (where available), in order to understand what cops have to do, on a day to day basis (guaranteed, you will be bored out of your minds, for the most part). Most of you have no clue. Most of you won't get involved (with the ride-alongs), as it would break those precious stereotypes, you have built up.

Some of you belabor the "Us v. Them" mentality, that is so often seen (on both sides), yet you fail to see where and when you yourself are perpetuating that very same mentality. Hypocrites! :confused:

ilbob
June 1, 2009, 08:37 AM
I don't have a major issue with police being issued carbines for their squads.

Not thrilled with FA versions though. Just don't see the need.

And only 200 of them. I would bet a city the size of Boston has a lot more than 200 cops. But 200 is a start I guess.

Wagonman
June 1, 2009, 08:58 AM
+1 Antipitas

OuTcAsT
June 1, 2009, 09:05 AM
Also you said:

Quote:
Outcast what is your beef with having a patrol rifle locked in the car?
Outcasts posts on the topic started with:

Quote:
I have no problem with officers being issued AR-15s as a trunk gun
His stance was that patrol rifles were a Good Thing (tm) but questioned the validity of full auto weapons for patrol officers.



Michael Anthony, That is correct, and thanks for clearing that up.


Bigger Hammer wrote:



Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
Respectfully Sir, You once again attempt to credit me with statements that I have not made, I do not intend to be baited into a genital waving contest over a topic that has been all but declared "verboten" and not under discussion here. Again, please point to any mention of "militarization" by me, in this thread or kindly refrain from dragging me into the folds of your wadded panties.
This is the same discussion wearing a different hat. It's obviously not necessary that you use the phrase "militarization of the police" for it to be the topic of discussion.




No it is not, you have for the second time characterized statements I have made, and attempted to place your own generalizations on them, and both times you were wrong. And just so we do not have any further mis- characterizations on the subject, I have no problem with patrol officers having the same semi-auto firearms available to them that are available to me. Why ?

Simple, because I do not want a paramilitary force (as described by Wagonman) to be routinely roaming the streets with better weaponry than is available to the public. At some point this "paramilitary organization" may decide that they want to ignore the oaths they took (as they seem to do on a regular basis depending on who is deemed a scumbag, and dregs of society that day) and I want the odds to be even. Now, you may proceed to make arguments against the "tin-foilness" of that comment to your hearts content. I laid my cards on the table, got the cajones to do the same "Big" guy ?


What is hypocritical about that stance ? If full auto becomes available to the public, under different terms than it is now, then by all means, the police should have access to them. I don't want an "army" on my block under the guise of "keeping the peace".

swman
June 1, 2009, 09:48 AM
Give'em air soft look alikes or bb guns.:rolleyes:

Glenn E. Meyer
June 1, 2009, 10:21 AM
Folks need to chill out and focus.

There are several threads going:

1. Do police actually need such guns?

Yes, they do. The N. Hollywood shoot out or Mumbai attack were Black Swan events but the idea is to be ready for something like that. Some of the school rampages show that suicide with hostile intent killers can come up with assault rifles, EBRs, etc. Thus, long arms should be available to trained officers.

2. They scare people and imply a military approach. Research (my own and by several others) indicate that EBRs prime aggressive thoughts. That is behind a great deal of the opposition to police usage. But get past it. A wood stock Mini-14 or a Pump 223 by Remington is the same round but it looks nice? The point about Europe is well taken. I landed in London and a little tank rolled by outside my plane window. We cannot cater to the appearance issue. The real issue is misuse.

3. So the police have them and we can't. In most of the country you can have a semi auto EBR! The full auto issue to me is minimal if we let well trained police be efficacious.

4. Having such weapons leads the police to be aggressive and violate our civil rights. Bad cops have existed before the M-16/AR platform. That is more administrative and cultural.

Bottom line - the Boston Mayor is probably playing the PC card.

johnwilliamson062
June 1, 2009, 10:22 AM
There seems to be some contention that with the right ammo 223 is no more likely to overpeetrate than 9mm. Do we really think bureaucrats are going to pay for that ammo? Are we talking corbon or something similar that is 4 times as expensive. I know that is would be unlikely to happen in my area. With what LEO will probably actually be issued the over penetration is a greater concern than the 9mm actually issued.

One of the major contentions in this arguments seems to be that as long as the qualifications are met officers should be allowed to have the rifles. I am not really against this, but I know of LEO who pass their pistol qualification and just aren't very good shooters. If I were in a situation where they responded I would be every bt as afraid of their fire as the BGs. At least one organization in my area lets officers attempt to qualify as may times as they want. The standard is not impeccable. As someone stated the LEO hit rate is about 15% w/ pistols. Columbus has an almost 80% hit rate. That is amazing, but it is because of how much training they do. Many departments are not willing/able to put the funding into training they should if they are going to carry high powered rifles.

Imagine if a car dealer started giving away ARs with the purchase of a car. How many of us would think that was a good idea? That is the best analogy I can see to my problems with the current situation. The idea was to give about 10% of the officers rifles. Does someone think they did some sort of analysis to see if 10% were capable? How many think that if only 5% qualified they would let 100 rifles sit in storage? I do not. I would be surprised if 10% did not have prior military training and were shooting enthusiasts who could handle the responsibility, but I doubt any thought was given to this. You simply have some people who have no real interest in firearms who are going to end up with rifles(some locations issue a patrol rifle standard). Look at the west Hollywood situation. None of those officers knew there were bolt guns that would deliver devastating hits even to the body? There were almost certainly 30-06 rifles in that gun store, probably more powerful ones. If they did not know how to operate any of the hunting/target/whatever rifles of larger caliber or did not understand the difference between a 30-06 and a 223 I do not think they knew all that much about rifles in the first place. LEO are not ALL firearms and ballistics experts. Some are, but some are just there for the job, and some are there to save the world and are almost as annoying as your average hippy. That has to be considered in this situation. The qualifications need to be more stringent that the handgun qualifications.

A huge portion of the people I shoot with are retired/active LEO. They know what they are doing and are more than capable of having an AR in their trunk. I also live in a suburban/rural area, so many of them grew up with some firearms experience.

Turning an inadequately trained person loose with a full auto M16 in a foreign country is OK with me, semi-auto in a US city, not so much. Ethnocentrism for the win.

maestro pistolero
June 1, 2009, 10:57 AM
Glenn E. Meyer:

3. So the police have them and we can't. In most of the country you can have a semi auto EBR! The full auto issue to me is minimal if we let well trained police be efficacious.


Boston Mayor Tom Menino said Friday he will not approve a police department plan to put semiautomatic M-16 rifles in the hands of regular patrol officers.

I thought an M16 was by definition select fire, either three round burst, or FA capable. Perhaps these were to be modified.

There seems to be some contention that with the right ammo 223 is no more likely to overpeetrate than 9mm. Do we really think bureaucrats are going to pay for that ammo?

The amount of ammo that would be deployed/expended in the field would be negligible. There would be no need to to train with expensive hollow points. And even m193 is running 60 to 70 cents a round these days. I'm pretty certain that military surplus training ammo is available to LE depts.

But any additional equipment is going to have considerable expenditures associated with it, none bigger than the expense of proper training.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 1, 2009, 10:59 AM
Please write the mayor with your corrections. :D

BTW - is the police shouldn't have them if I can't just a mild variant of our everpopular discusssion of the 2nd Amend. gives me the right to have an atomic cannon. That usually goes nowhere.

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 11:30 AM
And only 200 of them. I would bet a city the size of Boston has a lot more than 200 cops. But 200 is a start I guess.

Boston has just over 2,000 police officers.

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 11:31 AM
Earlier OuTcAsT wrote, Respectfully Sir, You once again attempt to credit me with statements that I have not made, I do not intend to be baited into a genital waving contest over a topic that has been all but declared "verboten" and not under discussion here. Again, please point to any mention of "militarization" by me, in this thread or kindly refrain from dragging me into the folds of your wadded panties.

And I responded This is the same discussion wearing a different hat. It's obviously not necessary that you use the phrase "militarization of the police" for it to be the topic of discussion.

No it is not

I think it is. It's basically an anti–police argument. Here are some such comments; IN THE ORIGINAL POST Dust Monkey wrote "This just might be the first of many such cities just saying no." [to the militarization of police]. Despite the disclaimer SteelJM1 wrote, "Not bashing on the street cops, but they have a hard enough qualifying with their pistols…" In what seems to be a common misconception about the facts you wrote, "But, I cannot see the need to issue M-16s to street cops. FA fire should not be that "necessary" for peace officers." The facts are clear, these M-16's have been modified to fire only semi–auto.

you have for the second time characterized statements I have made, and attempted to place your own generalizations on them, and both times you were wrong.

I'll disagree and I think I've proved my point. THE VERY FIRST POST in this thread AGAIN mentioned the "militarization of the police."

At the risk of a repremand from the moderators I will tell you to either keep my posts in context, take a reading comprehension class, put me on your ignore list, or STFU.

When you get to be a moderator here you can tell me what to do. Until then I'll express my opinion as I see fit. Don't like it? Then feel free to follow the advice you just handed out. In fact I invite you to put me on ignore! Notice that, unlike you, my comments are just suggestions not empty orders from someone with neither the position nor the power to enforce them.

And just so we do not have any further mis- characterizations on the subject, I have no problem with patrol officers having the same semi-auto firearms available to them that are available to me.

I'll disagree again. I think that police should have any weapons that are reasonable that will help them in the fight against crime. In this case your ranting is pointless. These donated M-16's have been converted to fire semi–auto only. Or in your world are they still FA M–16's?

Why ?

Simple, because I do not want a paramilitary force (as described by Wagonman) to be routinely roaming the streets with better weaponry than is available to the public.

Having M-16's converted to semi–auto (which makes them virtually identical to the AR-15 that is still legal to possess almost everywhere) hardly makes the police into a "paramilitary force." Neither does them having other equipment such as APC's.

At some point this "paramilitary organization" may decide that they want to ignore the oaths they took (as they seem to do on a regular basis depending on who is deemed a scumbag, and dregs of society that day) and I want the odds to be even.

The difference is that you think the police, on a regular basis "decide" to violate people's rights and do so in an egregious manner. The facts are that this happens only very rarely and when it does it's punished. EVEN RARER STILL is the use of FA weapons when those violations occur.

Now, you may proceed to make arguments against the "tin-foilness" of that comment to your hearts content.

It really doesn’t need such an argument from me. You've done so prima facie. lol

I laid my cards on the table, got the cajones to do the same "Big" guy ?

"Big guy?" ROFL. Such a comment implies either some familiarity or is used deprecatingly. I'd bet on the latter. Just more rudeness from someone who's run out o logic and reason and has lost the argument.

I laid my cards on the table for nearly 30 years on a police department plus nearly four years in the military. Might we know of your contributions?

This post may draw an insta-ban, but I will not sit here and be "citizen-bashed" any longer. As cop-Bashing seems to be verboten, but "citizen-bashing" seems fine. Hypocritical you say ?

Odd but I haven't seen anyone bashing the citizens. But I have seen quite a few, you included, talking about the police violating the rights of citizens on a regular basis. "deciding not to uphold their oaths." Being, all but incompetent, with their weapons, and more.

The first sentence of this paragraph, mentioning that it "may draw an Insta-ban" shows us that you KNOW that this comment is inappropriate and improper. Yet you still wrote it. It would appear that YOU are the one violating the rules, yet you fear the police doing the same thing. AGAIN we see hypocrisy from you.

I suggest that you take the advice of George Bernard Shaw to heart, "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

You just edited your post to add this paragraph.

What is hypocritical about that stance ? If full auto becomes available to the public, under different terms than it is now, then by all means, the police should have access to them. I don't want an "army" on my block under the guise of "keeping the peace".

More tinfoil–worthy comments. Thinking that a police officer who does not have an M-16 in his trunk is perfectly OK but as soon as that M–16 appears he becomes an "army on [your] block" and a violator of your rights and empowered to enslave you, is well … well it's just beyond silly.

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 11:32 AM
There seems to be some contention that with the right ammo 223 is no more likely to overpeetrate than 9mm.

"There seems to be some contention …" ROFL. Quite wrong. Such ammunition exists. There's no contention about that at all.

Do we really think bureaucrats are going to pay for that ammo?

They have and will. It's just another sales job. They now pay for hollow point handgun ammunition where they used to only pay for FMJ. Simply a matter of writing another grant request.

Are we talking corbon or something similar that is 4 times as expensive.

That is but one such choice. One that you conveniently use because the factor of "expense" fits your argument. But such ammunition need not be that expensive, especially given that it will rarely be used.

I know that is would be unlikely to happen in my area. With what LEO will probably actually be issued the over penetration is a greater concern than the 9mm actually issued.

Then if I was you I'd get busy writing letters to my local officials.

BTW do you know this to be a fact? Have you researched it? If so, please show us that research. If not, it's just more speculation based on a heavy bias. An unsupported opinion should not influence any but the holder of that opinion.

One of the major contentions in this arguments seems to be that as long as the qualifications are met officers should be allowed to have the rifles. I am not really against this, but I know of LEO who pass their pistol qualification and just aren't very good shooters. If I were in a situation where they responded I would be every bt as afraid of their fire as the BGs. At least one organization in my area lets officers attempt to qualify as may times as they want. The standard is not impeccable. As someone stated the LEO hit rate is about 15% w/ pistols.

I think that's about right WITH HANDGUNS. And as we all know most people find it far easier to shoot rifles accurately. Several times I've asked if anyone has "hit rate figures" for police using rifles but no one has responded. It could be that such figures don't exist because of the relatively low rate of use. It could also be that those who argue this position know that if such figures exist that it will greatly weaken their argument.

Add to this part of the discussion the fact that, for the most part, rifles will be used at longer ranges where handguns are less effective.

HERE'S. ( http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/lom/articles/134810-Tactical-Ops-The-long-guns/) an interesting article that addresses this matter. BTW you might noticed the reference to "polymer tipped ammo."

Many departments are not willing/able to put the funding into training they should if they are going to carry high powered rifles.

ROFLMAO. Just like an antigunners, you call the 5.56 a "high powered rifle." Giving away your true colors? The truth is that it's an intermediate power cartridge and has been known as such by intelligent, educated shooters since it was invented.

Imagine if a car dealer started giving away ARs with the purchase of a car. How many of us would think that was a good idea? That is the best analogy I can see to my problems with the current situation.

I think the analogy is weak but I think it's a GREAT idea. As long as the purchaser of the car can legally purchase the gun, the more guns in the hands of honest decent citizens, the better I like it.

The idea was to give about 10% of the officers rifles. Does someone think they did some sort of analysis to see if 10% were capable? How many think that if only 5% qualified they would let 100 rifles sit in storage? I do not.

Many departments do just that. Not only does an officer have to pass a qualification to carry the weapon but he has to actively WANT TO.

I would be surprised if 10% did not have prior military training and were shooting enthusiasts who could handle the responsibility, but I doubt any thought was given to this.

Just more speculation. Let us know when you have some facts please.

You simply have some people who have no real interest in firearms who are going to end up with rifles(some locations issue a patrol rifle standard).

Those people probably will not deploy them. Lots of officers never take their SG out of the rack because they don't like it, and know that they won't use it well. I have no doubt that these guns will be the same.

Look at the west Hollywood situation.

Actually it was the NORTH Hollywood situation. Officers of the "West Hollywood" station of the LA Sheriffs Dept. would be extremely put out by your error. LOL.

None of those officers knew there were bolt guns that would deliver devastating hits even to the body?

AGAIN you speculate. But this is REALLY a silly argument. A 5.56 round fired from an AR–15/M–16 is no different than the same round fired from a bolt gun.

There were almost certainly 30-06 rifles in that gun store, probably more powerful ones. If they did not know how to operate any of the hunting/target/whatever rifles of larger caliber or did not understand the difference between a 30-06 and a 223 I do not think they knew all that much about rifles in the first place.

There's a far greater chance that AS I SAID, "It's quite possible that they chose the AR-15 because of its similarities to their military experience with the M-16."

LEO are not ALL firearms and ballistics experts.

Few are.

Some are, but some are just there for the job, and some are there to save the world and are almost as annoying as your average hippy. That has to be considered in this situation. The qualifications need to be more stringent that the handgun qualifications.

OK. How do you know that they aren't. On my department no officer had any trouble with the handgun qualification. Yet many were unable to qualify with the long guns that were available, either the SG or the rifle. Those officers that did not qualify did not use those weapons.

Turning an inadequately trained person loose with a full auto M16 in a foreign country is OK with me, semi-auto in a US city, not so much. Ethnocentrism for the win.

It's not OK with me. I'm not a big fan of collateral damage, even in a foreign country. I know it will happen but there's no reason to increase the rate of it.

Please notice that NO ONE in this discussion is advocating "turning an inadequately person loose with a full auto M–16 …" First these weapons ARE NOT FA! Second, everyone arguing for their use agrees that training and qualification is necessary.

maestro pistolero
June 1, 2009, 11:50 AM
My head hurts. Somebody wake me up when the personal invective contest is over. :barf:

publius
June 1, 2009, 11:55 AM
Semi-auto AR, I'm all for it, (if they are required to attend extensive training and regular qualifications) full auto- absolutely not, (swat guys only.)

Glenn E. Meyer
June 1, 2009, 12:02 PM
I think the issue is worth discussing but:

1. Cut out the personal invective and stay with the technical issues. If you say something from this point on about another poster or their characteristics - you are gone.

2. Don't try to avoid the language filter - same warning - abbreviations and asterisks - you are gone. In fact, folks should go clean up their mess.

3. If you want a ban, the next time you ask - you got it.

If I didn't think the issue was worthy and have a techy interest - it would be closed now. I'll give it a little longer. However, I tried that with Sotomayor and had to close that when someone went Godwin.

I'm trying to be tolerant and appreciate a diversity of multiple cultures of the gun world but not for long.

JMortensen
June 1, 2009, 12:20 PM
The difference is that you think the police, on a regular basis "decide" to violate people's rights and do so in an egregious manner. The facts are that this happens only very rarely and when it does it's punished. EVEN RARER STILL is the use of FA weapons when those violations occur.
Rarely? Not rare enough for my liking: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/#

Maybe I'm the only one reading too many stories like this one:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/128723.html

Full auto is apparently a problem for some, caliber or "black rifle" is a problem for others. To me the problem is the lack of respect for our civil rights. No knock raids are a bigger problem to me than if the cop has an AR-15.

OuTcAsT
June 1, 2009, 12:43 PM
I have edited my post as suggested, and, since I cannot remain neutral on this particular subject, I will withdraw from the discussion.

ilbob
June 1, 2009, 01:04 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason is the mayor does not want to pay for another 20 or 40 hours of training per year per cop. He might also be nervous about the potential for the guns being stolen, as there have been a fair number of high profile incidents of stolen rifles from cop cars the last few years.

I don't see much of a downside to arming at least some street cops with carbines, anymore than with shotguns.

Chances are they will never be used, but it probably is not going to hurt anything, and it might make the cops feel better, even if it never leaves the trunk except to go back into the station house.

Its unlikely any citizens will be unduly frightened by them as they would only come out in a pretty serious situation where the citizenry in the area is probably already frightened.

Wagonman
June 1, 2009, 01:31 PM
Simple, because I do not want a paramilitary force (as described by Wagonman) to be routinely roaming the streets with better weaponry than is available to the public

I do not work for a Para-military force I work for a Police department that is a Para-military ORGANIZATION.

I don't want better weaponry, I want weaponry on a par with the miscreant I chase around the block. Semi-auto mini-14 would be fine.

I don't roam the streets I patrol the streets.

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 03:25 PM
Semi-auto AR, I'm all for it, (if they are required to attend extensive training and regular qualifications) full auto- absolutely not, (swat guys only.)

Can you explain why you consider FA OK for the SWAT guys but not anyone else?

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 03:28 PM
Earlier I wrote, The difference is that you think the police, on a regular basis "decide" to violate people's rights and do so in an egregious manner. The facts are that this happens only very rarely and when it does it's punished. EVEN RARER STILL is the use of FA weapons when those violations occur.

Rarely? Not rare enough for my liking:

One is too many for me. You gave a link for the Cato Institute. A wise person would take anything that comes from the Cato institute with a grain of salt. Their founder was a strict libertarian. ANY government is too much government for them.

Maybe I'm the only one reading too many stories like this one:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/128723.html

Probably not. But I fail to see any relations between this story and the police getting semi–auto M-16's and this incident or between this story and the repeating issue of "the militarization of the police."

Full auto is apparently a problem for some, caliber or "black rifle" is a problem for others. To me the problem is the lack of respect for our civil rights. No knock raids are a bigger problem to me than if the cop has an AR-15.

But this thread is not about "lack of respect for our civil rights" or "no knock raids" is it? No it's just another excuse for you to put forth an anti–police post. Sad really that some can't stick to the topic and have to use it as an excuse.

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 03:29 PM
since I cannot remain neutral on this particular subject, I will withdraw from the discussion.

it's not about "remain[ing] neutral." Most are NOT neutral but have taken sides. It's about remaining polite and professional.

You knew a previous post was inappropriate and improper when you made it, evidenced by your own comments about it. Yet that didn't stop you.

bigger hammer
June 1, 2009, 03:30 PM
I do not work for a Para-military force I work for a Police department that is a Para-military ORGANIZATION.

I don't want better weaponry, I want weaponry on a par with the miscreant I chase around the block. Semi-auto mini-14 would be fine.

I don't roam the streets I patrol the streets.

Not–so–subtle points that escape many here. Good post!

ilbob
June 1, 2009, 04:37 PM
I want weaponry on a par with the miscreant I chase around the block.
Is any PD going to allow a patrolman to take his rifle on a foot chase? Is that even practical?

There are a lot of tactical disadvantages to a foot chase while carrying a long gun. Just getting it out of secure storage takes enough time that the miscreant might get enough of a lead that you never catch him. No way can you run as fast with a rifle as without one. And a rifle is something that can get caught on things as you run down the street.

I am going to bet that any cop issued a rifle on an urban department is going to have pretty strict rules on when it can be deployed, and I would further bet that those rules would result in virtually no deployments of rifles by the average patrolman.

It might make the cop driving down the street feel better/safer to have a rifle locked in the trunk, or wherever they end up putting it, but whether it is ever going to make a difference is another matter, other than some potential effect on the behavior of the BGs, and a once in a lifetime event like the LA bank robbery.

<added> It appears Boston has about 2000 cops on the force. Figure about 1/3 are administrators, detectives and such, that leaves perhaps 1400 street cops. probably amounting to about 400 on duty at any one time. 200 rifles would arm half those on duty if the were shared.

JMortensen
June 1, 2009, 06:38 PM
One is too many for me. You gave a link for the Cato Institute. A wise person would take anything that comes from the Cato institute with a grain of salt. Their founder was a strict libertarian. ANY government is too much government for them.
This is what we refer to as an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy of irrelevance. You're attacking the SOURCE of the information, and not the information itself. If you're comfortable trusting the police to do whatever they want with whatever guns they want, then that's fine. But please don't say that those of us who aren't comfortable with it aren't wise, and then back that up with illogical reasoning. That don't make no sense.

Hkmp5sd
June 1, 2009, 06:56 PM
I thought an M16 was by definition select fire, either three round burst, or FA capable. Perhaps these were to be modified.


Many agencies, including LAPD, that have accepted M16s from the DoD, had the full auto capabilities removed. The elected officials that get to choose weapons had both the same LEO with a machinegun bias as shown here along with libability paranoia.

You use the same tired arguments, against arming the police, as the anti-gunners use against you. Rather hypocritical, don't you think?


You're against the police having FA capabilities, in these threads, yet on others, you wail against government FA restrictions on yourself. Again, hypocritical.


The best worded comments in this debate.

6th infantry
June 1, 2009, 07:02 PM
well there is no point in arming police officers with m-16 style rifles unless the police dept has the budget for the range time that these types of rifles reqiure.If a city where these rifles are being deployed has the money to properly train their officers to utilize this weapon system then fine!Police officers shouldnt be outgunned by the criminals.On the other hand if a cop is able to have a m16 so should we.

Al Norris
June 1, 2009, 07:31 PM
This is what we refer to as an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy of irrelevance. You're attacking the SOURCE of the information, and not the information itself.
If I talk about our congresscritters, that technically is an ad hominem attack against the entire Congress. It is not against the rules of this board, to attack the Congress. What is against the rules is ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam.

However, the term, congresscritters, is also an invective, and as such is against the rules of this section (the L&CR forum) of TFL.

But please don't say that those of us who aren't comfortable with it aren't wise, and then back that up with illogical reasoning.

That wasn't what was said or implied. I think you know this.

Since the general noise level seems to be on the rise...

This thread is done.