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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
If the cops "need" rifles.....

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!
 
But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet!
Click to expand...

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").
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

Outcasts posts on the topic started with:

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

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

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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
I believe I am being misunderstood

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").
Click to expand...

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....
 
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!)
 
OuTcAsT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

OuTcAsT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top