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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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]

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]

I have edited my post as suggested, and, since I cannot remain neutral on this particular subject, I will withdraw from the discussion.

 

[ilbob]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.