Boston Police and AR15's

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nickel Plated said:
Yes, you don't mind cops having ARs because you have one yourself. Some of us in places like NY and Mass. very much mind it.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that sentiment. I would probably feel that way if I lived in a restrictive state.
 
The Town, patrol car weapons....

Didn't the new Boston mayor see The Town?
:D
Really, to me it's a non-issue. The Boston PD should have at least one/01 M4 or short barrel SMG & at least one/01 SBS(short barrel shotgun/12ga) in every patrol car.
"Plain clothes" or "soft clothes" units should have 12ga shotguns or access to M4s/patrol rifles too.
Id arm a deputy or police officer with a SIG P229R .40S&W with a short barrel, select fire MPX in .40S&W. A red dot or optical sight can aid marksmanship in high stress events or any "active shooter" incidents.
LE officers in 2014 need to be highly trained & responsive to all types of threats.
The "para-military" or "scary guns" argument is lame.
Cops have to deal with traffic stops that turn violent, active shooters/hostage events, PSD/protection details, etc.
Patrol rifles are a part of the modern LE arsenel.
Clyde
 
I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to be contradictory in my first post, I just think referring to any guns as 'military style' is playing into the antis evil gun hating. Given the purpose for which they were designed--almost all weapons are military style.

As for giving the police more powerful semi or select fire weapons, there is simply no need. We don't need our LEO's in an arms race with the few potential bad guys. Police have the numbers and the training to deal with bad situations, better guns simply aren't needed. The biggest problem (I tried to point out) is where does it stop?? APCs?? Tanks?? Just because civilians can possess many potentially dangerous weapons (when in the wrong hands) does not mean the police should also be over arming themselves to deal with such rarely occurring scenarios.

I have some friends who are LEOs and I'm a happy, healthy, law abiding citizen; but what if I had a total mental brake down (or medical condition causing insanity, like Charles Whitman). Should my local police have long range artillery? Because even the armored SWAT mobile is just a tin can for my model 99 and a couple slap rounds. So if we keep increasing police armaments for rare potential threats, where does it end?
 
I think it stops with a rifle. I don't buy the argument that such will extend to B-1Bs on patrol for the Mayberry police.

Why?

1. We are seeing enough crimes with long arms to argue that the immediately arriving officers have such.

2. We have seen a small number of crimes with folks with vests impervious to handguns. It would be nice to stop them quickly.
 
1. We are seeing enough crimes with long arms to argue that the immediately arriving officers have such.
Click to expand...

What happened to the whole "Only 2% of crimes are committed with rifles" thing we keep throwing around? Hardly seems like enough crimes to me.
 
Sierra280 ....As for giving the police more powerful semi or select fire weapons, there is simply no need.
Click to expand...
Absolute malarkey.
Did you look at the video clip I posted?
Please answer my question:
Watch this video and tell us how you would feel if that was your son or daughter in the squad car armed with a only stick or six shot revolver:
Click to expand...
 
After listening to that 200 round fusillade they unleashed at the pressure cooker jerk in the sailboat last summer, I just assumed they were already gunned up. That the citizens of Boston (cradle of Liberty) need well armed police in lieu of their forfeited self defense rights is a real possibility. Now if we could only figure out a way to get those well-armed officers to where they are needed in time to do any good! I'm sure glad our guys have them. APD/ BCSD is pretty damned impressive as a quick reaction force, as they recently demonstrated when confronted by an AK look alike. Be prepared is good advice.
 
Last edited:
I would be opposed to it simply because of the $2,500 price tag; more than double the price of a Colt AR-15 with iron sights. Add a decent optic and you're still 600 to a thousand dollars too high. And that's retail.
 
Unless I'm mistaken, police purchase contracts for weapons usually include armorer's courses, replacement parts, etc. That may be factored into the cost.
 
Even if Boston is a AW restrictive State the gangs there still have AR's and AK's they steal them and bring them across state borders, and The Police are the ones that have to stop them with a pistol. You try that and see how long you last. Remember the bank robbery shootout in North Hollywood. Those maggots had fully automatic AK variants shooting 7.62X39mm ammo against shotguns and 9mm's and did I mention they were fully covered with armor including their legs.
 
2% with rifles - that may be. However, we see a significant number of highly intensive crimes with long arms.

That most domestics may be folks popping away with hanguns, doesn't negate the need to combat the nut or high end bank robber with a long arm.
 
osirus82 said:
I agree that the police should have access, training and assault rifles available for the police officers on patrol.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that nobody is talking about assault rifles here. By definition, an "assault rifle" is capable of full-auto or burst fire. But these are just AR-15s being talked about here, which are semi-auto only.

Sorry to harp on incorrect terminology, but incorrect terminology adds to the ignorance that fuels mass support for the "assault weapons" ban and such. The article linked here even refers to AR-15s as "machine guns". A huge amount of people in this country believe that an "assault weapons" ban will ban machine guns and that the AR-15 is full-auto. Even Bloomberg and Obama have been quoted within the last year as saying the AR-15 is a full-auto weapon. The last thing we need to be doing is adding to that ignorance by calling AR-15s "assault rifles" ourselves.
 
Nickel Plated ....What happened to the whole "Only 2% of crimes are committed with rifles" thing we keep throwing around? Hardly seems like enough crimes to me.
Click to expand...
Well, being that the majority of crimes are committed without any firearm whatsoever...........do you advocate police not carrying a gun at all?:rolleyes:
 
That's silly comparison. Period.

EdInk If the citizens cannot have them neither should the police force. Period.
Click to expand...

Using that line of reasoning:
If citizens cannot write traffic tickets, neither should the police.....right?
If citizens cannot prescribe medications, neither should MD's....right?
If citizens cannot perform root canals, neither should dentists....right?

"Citizens" are completely free to vote by the way..........if you elect anti's, expect these kind of laws.

Give the cops the tools they need to stay alive.
 
Side point....

The "we should be armed just like the cops" argument reminds me of a Youtube clip I saw of a guy driving around badgering uniformed LE officers about the state seatbelt laws.
:rolleyes:
The "concerned citizen" demanded(my term) the police officers tell him why they drove with no seatbelts.
If I were a cop, I wouldn't be very civil or polite with the citizen as a few of the recorded LE were.
In my location, sworn LE officers on regular duty(on duty) do not need to wear safety belts with the vehicle is in motion by state law(motor vehicle code).

Are these cops "above the law"? No.
Use of seat belts or safety equipment issues are sometimes LE union issues or the subject of dispute with elected officials/police boards.
Similar arguments & disputes are made about weapons/use of force policy.

Clyde
 
They are just AR-15's, not Humvee mounted M2 machine guns with API rounds or a rocket launcher. As bcarver mentioned this is in Massachusetts so I'm not 100% shocked.
Click to expand...

That's pretty-much what was mobilized, along with armored fighting vehicles, when the city was locked-down while searching for one, possibly armed teenager. My concern would be when and where the ARs would be used, rather than how many were available.
 
If I were a cop, I wouldn't be very civil or polite with the citizen as a few of the recorded LE were.
In my location, sworn LE officers on regular duty(on duty) do not need to wear safety belts with the vehicle is in motion by state law(motor vehicle code). ClydeFrog
Click to expand...

Now to play the devils advocate, Should a NASCAR driver in a ZR-1 Corvette be pulled over for doing 90mph in a 70mph zone? I feel a professional Race Car driver is much more qualified to drive at high speeds than a police officer. But I have heard that "Thats a risk LEOs have to take" (driving fast/no seat belt)...and thats a bunch of Malarky in my book. Seatbelts save lives, yes, but I guarantee if the LEO wasnt wearing their seat belt in a crash, their insurance or the city would still pay out...


That being said, I have also witnessed police officers dramatically breaking the speed limit with out their lights on... So explain how they are not above the law?

Now to the OP's question, I honestly have no problem with LEOs having in their patrol cars an AR-15 variant of some sort and a shotgun. Just as civilians can have these types of firearms, I think a LEO should have the proper tools available for the situation at hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top