Boston Mayor Rejects Idea to Arm Police Officers With Military Assault Weapons

[tkopp]

Are you honestly suggesting that it's not the lack of drawbacks that worries you, but rather that the rifle is *too good?*

If the argument was m14s for patrol cops I could come up with plenty of reasons why a shotgun is better in most situations, but the m16 or ar15 just doesn't have a lot of drawbacks. I enjoy the idea of expanding the ability of a patrol cop. Here in Washington any citizen with a driver's license and a lack of felonies can walk into a store and walk out with a rifle same day. If an officer trains on and qualifies for carrying the ar15, more power to them. I'd rather see Brass McCoppington walking around with a black rifle than a lot of my neighbors

 

[DHJenkins]

Have you ever heard Menino speak? He has more marbles in his mouth than in his head.

 

[ilbob]

Public support is important for police and image is part of that. OTOH, it would not bother me a whole lot of they put an AR in every squad car. Its not like they will be carting them around in public all that much.

I kind of agree though that a shotgun might be a better choice. Give them some buck shot and some slugs and they are good to go out to 100 yards or so.

But an AR is probably at least as good as a shotgun for many cases, and has utility at somewhat longer ranges. The thing is that marksmanship starts to become a bigger issue as you go farther out. Keeping them able to reliably hit a target a couple hundred yards out with iron sights is not that difficult but will require a lot of extra training time and practice to maintain proficiency. I wonder if the mayor is really saying he does not want to pay for an additional 20 or 40 hours a year of training on the OT budget.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

If you need the 30 rounds in a ar, you are missing or are facing a mob, either way you did something wrong. thats a software issue, not hardware...

You have a problem with the thirty rounds he could have in an AR but not the forty six he does have for his sidearm?

 

[runrabbitrun]

The cops don't need any weapons.
We are a peaceful society and everyone obeys the law. lol

 

[7.5-Swiss]

It is interesting that European police often carry subguns in public at train stations and airports, but American liberals wet in their pants at the idea of our police doing the same. I thought the anti gunners wanted America to be like Europe?

I would hope any liberty loving American would disapprove of any kind of militarization of police. We don't need law enforcement with M-16s checking our papers at the train station or airport. Perhaps you forget in your comparison that European government and society is in a way the ultimate expression of what many "liberals" in this country hope to transform the United States into.

Unfortunately, when the line between military and law enforcement tactics blurs, instances of unnecessary force rise. I'm sure many of us have read countless stories of 'no-knock' warrants being conducted at the wrong addresses, resulting in tragedy for all involved. Do I think that M16s may in some instances be perfectly acceptable for the police to have and use? Yes. I also think that if we had road blocks at state crossings with 'paper' requirements to travel some crimes would be hampered. That does not mean I agree with it.

I for one, am glad the mayor of Boston shut down issuing m16s to patrol officers. And I am surprised that so many here don't seem to be the least bit concerned with the concept.

I have no problem with well-armed cops, provided civilians have access to the same weaponry.

Agreed. Good luck getting an MP-5.

 

[bigger hammer]

Posts: 2,421 I would just like to point out, even if they got the rifles for free and truck load of ammo to go with, it would still cost them big bucks to train and certify the officers in the use of the rifles. That cost a whole lot more then the rifles.

There are hundreds of grants available that would make this training cost ZERO. The mayor's decision is nothing but more anti–gun nonsense as are many of the arguments against this here.

 

[bigger hammer]

Pervasive Vagrant quotes another poster,

You break out a long gun when serving a felony warrant or making a felony traffic stop. You may not need it, but that's what your sling is for.

The shotgun's also a great tool, but is useful for very short range. Slugs are, for example, better at reliably penetrating a car and retaining enough energy to stop the driver. You can, with slugs, hit a target out to 50/100y, but you'll never be as accurate as you would have with an AR15.

How often do cops need a long-range tack driver though? How common are confrontations past 50 yards? [Emphasis added]

I can't remember the last time that I've seen this many misunderstandings and misconceptions running rampant. The poster that you quoted mentioned "felony warrants" and "felony traffic stops." NEITHER Of them necessarily involves "a confrontation past 50 yards" as you say. In those cases the weapons are chosen for the increased stopping power. Anyone who chooses a handgun when HE KNOWS BEFOREHAND that a fight may ensue simply doesn't understand the problem. A handgun is a poor second choice in most of those situations. They're only used because they're handy and convenient. In a very few environments they're a better choice, but those are quite rare.

But it really makes no difference how often confrontations past 50 yards occur. When they do, neither the SG nor the handgun is the weapon of choice. The SG might do the job but few officers can fire it as accurately as a rifle.

 

[bigger hammer]

If you need the 30 rounds in a ar, you are missing or are facing a mob, either way you did something wrong. thats a software issue, not hardware...

I wonder how often you've been under automatic fire? I wonder how often you've been shot at AT ALL? Under such circumstances accurate aimed fire is often quite difficult, resulting in more misses when the target is paper and not shooting at you. .

 

[bigger hammer]

Public support is important for police and image is part of that.

My Chief never gave a thought to "public support." Yet he was very popular with the people. Often he did things that he knew would anger them, yet at the end of the day it made them safer.

I kind of agree though that a shotgun might be a better choice. Give them some buck shot and some slugs and they are good to go out to 100 yards or so.

Given that pellets shot from a SG spread about 1" per yard of travel, that gives you a 100" pattern. Few pellets will strike the target and many will go "into the neighborhood."

But an AR is probably at least as good as a shotgun for many cases, and has utility at somewhat longer ranges. The thing is that marksmanship starts to become a bigger issue as you go farther out. Keeping them able to reliably hit a target a couple hundred yards out with iron sights is not that difficult but will require a lot of extra training time and practice to maintain proficiency. I wonder if the mayor is really saying he does not want to pay for an additional 20 or 40 hours a year of training on the OT budget.

Grants are available that will make such training cost nothing. But it's a VERY rare situation where a patrol officer will be called on to make a shot of "a couple hundreds yards out …" But if it was ever necessary neither the handgun nor the SG are capable of doing it reliably. Hitting a man-size target out to 200–300 yards with an AR–15/M–16 is not all that hard, even with iron sights.

 

[bigger hammer]

7.5-Swiss quotes another poster,

It is interesting that European police often carry subguns in public at train stations and airports, but American liberals wet in their pants at the idea of our police doing the same. I thought the anti gunners wanted America to be like Europe?

I would hope any liberty loving American would disapprove of any kind of militarization of police. We don't need law enforcement with M-16s checking our papers at the train station or airport.

Try getting back into the US at an airport without having a LEO check your passport. What difference does it make if he's got an AR–15/M–16 on a sling or a handgun on his belt?

Unfortunately, when the line between military and law enforcement tactics blurs, instances of unnecessary force rise.

Here's the "militarization of the police" argument again, just wearing a different hat. When the local police kick in your door, toss in a fragmentation grenade then enter and kill everyone who's still alive, you might have a case. Until then it's just nonsense. Can you give us EVEN ONE such instance occurring with the police in the US?

I'm sure many of us have read countless stories of 'no-knock' warrants being conducted at the wrong addresses, resulting in tragedy for all involved.

Such errors ALSO have nothing to do with the "militarization of the police" discussion. It’s a MISTAKE.

Do I think that M16s may in some instances be perfectly acceptable for the police to have and use? Yes. I also think that if we had road blocks at state crossings with 'paper' requirements to travel some crimes would be hampered. That does not mean I agree with it.

I find it fascinating that you make the leap from a police department getting M–16's "road blocks at state crossings with 'paper' requirements to travel" It's not even on the same "slippery slope." Heck it's not even on the same mountain! ROFL.

I for one, am glad the mayor of Boston shut down issuing m16s to patrol officers.

Some keep forgetting that these guns have been converted to "semi–only" fire. Does that make a difference to you?

And I am surprised that so many here don't seem to be the least bit concerned with the concept.

This is identical to the comments that man made when police went from revolvers to semi-auto handguns. AND AGAIN when they went from round–nose lead bullets to hollow–points. Notice we STILL don't have border checkpoints.

7.5-Swiss quotes another poster,

I have no problem with well-armed cops, provided civilians have access to the same weaponry.

Agreed. Good luck getting an MP-5.

In many states it's completely legal to purchase and own an MP–5.

 

[tkopp]

Bear in mind, I'm not knocking the shotgun at all. They're great weapons. They tend to just work, they have plenty of close-range stopping power, and with the correct loads can be extended to LE engagement ranges.

What I'm arguing is that, except in niche situations, the M16 or AR15 platform is just better. There isn't a downside except training, and from what I hear (I'm not in law enforcement) properly training someone on under-stress use of the pump gun isn't any easier than properly using the slightly more involved AR15. These weapons were free. The only cost came in buying ammunition for training. It seems silly to me to turn them down on ideological grounds.

The argument that somehow better-equipping the police will lead to a gestapo state is equally baffling to me. Are they under-equipped *now* to execute some totalitarian fantasy? Aren't they already better armed, armored, and trained than the majority of individuals they encounter? I'm not sure how an upgrade to the police weapons platform is going to somehow allow a distoptian agenda to sweep the nation.

 

[bigger hammer]

What I'm arguing is that, except in niche situations, the M16 or AR15 platform is just better. There isn't a downside except training, and from what I hear (I'm not in law enforcement) properly training someone on under-stress use of the pump gun isn't any easier than properly using the slightly more involved AR15.

Usually, with people who are already using semi–auto handguns, the transition to the AR–15/M–16 is easier than a transition to the SG, especially if it's a pump action.

These weapons were free. The only cost came in buying ammunition for training. It seems silly to me to turn them down on ideological grounds.

I'd be willing to bet that the Mayor in this case, like many before him, has already taken an anti–gun stance, especially against those horrid, killer assault weapons. His department was given 200 of them for free and now he's stuck. He certainly can't change his political stance at this late date so he does the politically correct thing and says, "No."

The argument that somehow better-equipping the police will lead to a gestapo state is equally baffling to me.

It baffled me too. But then I realized that it was just another opportunity for those who really don't like the police to bash them again.

Are they under-equipped *now* to execute some totalitarian fantasy? Aren't they already better armed, armored, and trained than the majority of individuals they encounter? I'm not sure how an upgrade to the police weapons platform is going to somehow allow a distoptian agenda to sweep the nation.

Remember the Buffalo Springfield? "Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep."

 

[TAB]

wonder how often you've been under automatic fire? I wonder how often you've been shot at AT ALL? Under such circumstances accurate aimed fire is often quite difficult, resulting in more misses when the target is paper and not shooting at you. .

how often does it happen for a cop?

I'd bet I've been shot at more in the last 10 years then the average cop has.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier TAB wrote,

If you need the 30 rounds in a ar, you are missing or are facing a mob, either way you did something wrong. thats a software issue, not hardware...

And I responded

I wonder how often you've been under automatic fire? I wonder how often you've been shot at AT ALL? Under such circumstances accurate aimed fire is often quite difficult, resulting in more misses when the target is paper and not shooting at you. .

how often does it happen for a cop?

Some reason that you didn't answer my very simple questions?

I'd bet I've been shot at more in the last 10 years then the average cop has.

You could have given us the numbers instead of playing games and prolonging your evasiveness. But you chose not to. Again, I wonder why?

 

[Officers'Wife]

I'm unclear as to how you get to "failed policies" of a PD from the Feds giving them weaponry.

Not a fan of Jonathon Swift I take it. I suppose I'm just used to a different way of thinking. The fact the great White Father in Washington seems to believe that department 'needs' to arm it's men with battle rifles in order to keep the peace implies an extremely violent area. Since, according to Rousseau, the office of government is to provide the background for a peaceful society such an implication denotes a failure of that government.

 

[Dan Crocker]

Um hello! If cops have them, they magically become 'patrol rifles!'

 

[yokel]

Many people consider that they face a trigger-happy police force, acting with impunity under the government's anti-terrorist laws.

 

[7.5-Swiss]

Here's the "militarization of the police" argument again, just wearing a different hat. When the local police kick in your door, toss in a fragmentation grenade then enter and kill everyone who's still alive, you might have a case. Until then it's just nonsense. Can you give us EVEN ONE such instance occurring with the police in the US?

Using this logic complete gun registration is ok, since its not a gun ban? Right.

In many states it's completely legal to purchase and own an MP–5.

Yes, so long as it was manufactured prior to 1989 and you have a $200 federal tax stamp. I think the going rate on MP5's with paperwork is near $18,000.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

What I meant was that if the cops can have full-autos, we should to. If not, they shouldn't get any either.

I know, it's dreamland.

 

[Aquila]

God, I thought I incarnated this lifetime in America because it was populated with persons believing themselves to be a free people not requiring to be tyrannically bullied by ANY gov't... I guess I was wrong!

 

[RP88]

personally, especially given Mass.'s view on guns and so-called assault weapons, I'm glad they won't give them out. If an average civilian can't have one, then a cop (a civilian who wears a uniform 8-10 hours a day) shouldn't be able to have one either. "Only the military needs those weapons/they don't belong on our nation's streets". Right?

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

I'm unclear as to how you get to "failed policies" of a PD from the Feds giving them weaponry.

The fact the great White Father in Washington seems to believe that department 'needs' to arm it's men with battle rifles in order to keep the peace implies an extremely violent area.

Nonsense. This is akin to when anti–gunners say that people who carry a gun "must either be afraid or paranoid." The fact is that there are criminals with rifles who will assault the citizenry and police officers alike. Giving the police comparable (or better) guns to fight them with is merely an acceptance of the world as it is, rather than how you wish it was. It has NOTHING to do with an admission that a specific area is more violent than another. This is just more anti-gunner drivel. There's no such thing as a "good neighborhood" where crime does not occur anymore.

Since, according to Rousseau, the office of government is to provide the background for a peaceful society such an implication denotes a failure of that government.

EVEN MORE anti–gun rhetoric. Not unexpected. It runs rampant throughout this thread. No society is completely peaceful.

 

[bigger hammer]

Many people consider that they face a trigger-happy police force, acting with impunity under the government's anti-terrorist laws.

Someone's been watching too much TV and too many movies. Such people need to take a dose of reality and shed their paranoia.

Such people probably also think that they're being followed by black helicopters and have thoughts that the gov't has planted tracking devices under their skin. They need treatment, and soon.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

Here's the "militarization of the police" argument again, just wearing a different hat. When the local police kick in your door, toss in a fragmentation grenade then enter and kill everyone who's still alive, you might have a case. Until then it's just nonsense. Can you give us EVEN ONE such instance occurring with the police in the US?

Using this logic complete gun registration is ok, since its not a gun ban? Right.

ROFLMAO. Notice that you didn't answer my very simple question and supply us as asked for "EVEN ONE such instance of the local police kick[ing] in your door, toss[ing] in a fragmentation grenade then enter[ing] and kill[ing] everyone who's still alive." That's because despite your earlier comments about the militarization of the police and this statement, it's NEVER happened.

Unfortunately, when the line between military and law enforcement tactics blurs, instances of unnecessary force rise.

Nothing such as I suggested has EVER occurred. You'd think with the increase of the "militarization of the police" that such incidents would be common. But they're not. Rather, they're non existent.

How you get from "the government is giving the Boston PD 200 M–16's" to "complete gun registration is OK, since it's not a gun ban." defies logic and reason.

But since you brought it up, No it's not OK. I'd suggest that you stop imagining that the police are anti–gun. There are a few but they are pretty rare. My own department with over a hundred officers, had only one who thought that JQ Public should not own what the press and politicians now call assault weapons. He allowed for the possession of handguns of all types. Some Chiefs of Police are anti–gun but they are not police officers, they're politicians (or hope to be one soon).

Earlier I wrote,

In many states it's completely legal to purchase and own an MP–5.

Yes, so long as it was manufactured prior to 1989 and you have a $200 federal tax stamp. I think the going rate on MP5's with paperwork is near $18,000.

Shooting is not a sport for the faint of wallet. But MP–5's can still be legally possessed in many states which directly contradicts the thrust of your earlier comment that they were not.