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

[bigger hammer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[ilbob]

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]

+1 Antipitas

 

[OuTcAsT]

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]

Give'em air soft look alikes or bb guns.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[bigger hammer]

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]

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]

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. 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]

My head hurts. Somebody wake me up when the personal invective contest is over. :barf:

 

[publius]

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.)