|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 1, 2009, 09:48 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 152
|
Give'em air soft look alikes or bb guns.
|
June 1, 2009, 10:21 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 1, 2009, 10:22 AM | #53 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
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. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; June 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM. |
June 1, 2009, 10:57 AM | #54 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Glenn E. Meyer:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But any additional equipment is going to have considerable expenditures associated with it, none bigger than the expense of proper training. Last edited by maestro pistolero; June 1, 2009 at 11:06 AM. |
|||
June 1, 2009, 10:59 AM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Please write the mayor with your corrections.
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 1, 2009, 11:30 AM | #56 | |
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
|
|
June 1, 2009, 11:31 AM | #57 | ||||||||||||
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Earlier OuTcAsT wrote,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
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. Quote:
|
||||||||||||
June 1, 2009, 11:32 AM | #58 | ||||||||||||||||
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. an interesting article that addresses this matter. BTW you might noticed the reference to "polymer tipped ammo." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||||||||||||
June 1, 2009, 11:50 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
My head hurts. Somebody wake me up when the personal invective contest is over. :barf:
Last edited by maestro pistolero; June 1, 2009 at 12:37 PM. |
June 1, 2009, 11:55 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2005
Location: Mississippi/Texas
Posts: 2,505
|
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.)
__________________
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress, but I repeat myself." Mark Twain |
June 1, 2009, 12:02 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 1, 2009, 12:20 PM | #62 | |
Member
Join Date: May 27, 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 27
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jon |
|
June 1, 2009, 12:43 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
I have edited my post as suggested, and, since I cannot remain neutral on this particular subject, I will withdraw from the discussion.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
June 1, 2009, 01:04 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
|
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.
__________________
bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum. |
June 1, 2009, 01:31 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
Quote:
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. |
|
June 1, 2009, 03:25 PM | #66 | |
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
|
|
June 1, 2009, 03:28 PM | #67 | ||||
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
June 1, 2009, 03:29 PM | #68 | |
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
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. |
|
June 1, 2009, 03:30 PM | #69 | |
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
|
|
June 1, 2009, 04:37 PM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum. Last edited by ilbob; June 1, 2009 at 04:46 PM. |
|
June 1, 2009, 06:38 PM | #71 | |
Member
Join Date: May 27, 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 27
|
Quote:
__________________
Jon |
|
June 1, 2009, 06:56 PM | #72 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
||
June 1, 2009, 07:02 PM | #73 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2009
Posts: 6
|
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.
|
June 1, 2009, 07:31 PM | #74 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
However, the term, congresscritters, is also an invective, and as such is against the rules of this section (the L&CR forum) of TFL. Quote:
Since the general noise level seems to be on the rise... This thread is done. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|