Boston Police and AR15's

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why don't we all just wear shock collars, that way the police can just push a button and shut down anyone they feel is a threat?

The 2nd amendment was designed to prevent a government monopoly on force, and because of a handful of nutcases we beg big brother to take care of us. I agree with the mayor, I see no reason to further militarize local police. As a former LEO, I understand the desire to have an advantage over potential adversaries. I also understand the oath sworn to uphold the law is taken once early on and quickly forgotten. In my humble opinion, your average Constable on Patrol should be an impartial mediator of the law, not the ultimate unstoppable crime fighter. There is a place for high speed, low drag operators. On patrol, in constant contact with the citizenry is not one of them.

I know I live in a fantasy world where people are responsible for their own actions and freedom has not been totally surrendered, but I do not believe that bigger, better guns stops the next Sandy Hook or LA Bank robbery.
 
Why wouldn't have an officer with an AR have stopped the North Hollywood incident sooner than actually happened?

The two guys were hit with multiple handgun rounds and continued firing.

Given that a rampage nut can kill tens of folks in a couple of minutes and we now expect officers to immediately engage - I'm quite alright with them engaging with a long arm. Like I said - my building is 100 yards long. Yep, if a plain old officer isn't trusted to engage at that distance with a long arm - the solution is to train them up to make 100 yard shots with a pistol. It has been done but why not make it easier.

If police culture is so warped by having a long arm that they become tyrants of the state, do having ARs make average folks into rampaging nutsos. That's the claim and I don't buy either.
 
Why not set up 155mm howitzers and engage from across town?

As you put it, the expectation to immediatly engage, is a flawed concept. An officer with a rifle might have just forced them back into the bank to take shots from cover and execute hostages. There are numerous what-if's that could have had a worse ending.

And while I will be among the first to say that the while the vast majority of folks wearing a badge are fantastic, in many cases they already are a tool of state tyranny. By enforcing unconstitutional laws, warrantless searches and curfews ( the search for the Boston marathon bomber comes to mind again). I personally have had to make the choice between someone elses rights and my paycheck. Once you witness that ugliness, its hard to grant even more power and authority to an entity which uses them without nearly enough accountability.

Far more people are killed by over-zealous cops than cops that are killed by being out-gunned.
 
Prove that last assertion with figures and statistics.

Talk about ridiculous speculation to denounce officers. If the cops at North Hollywood had a rifle, it would have been over. They had hit the guys with their handguns to no effect. If they had hit with rifles, the bad guys weren't going inside.
 
We're really not discussing gun-related issues so much as we are matters of public policy and law enforcement. Everyone's had their say, so I'm going to close this before it ventures any further off topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top