Precedent?? How do you like the idea of Heavily armed officers?

FishInFL

It's more fear, uncertainty, and doubt that govt is trying to sell to increase their power and their access to cooler toys, which are completely unnecessary in 99.9999% of instances. Hell most cops will tell you they never even fired their gun, but now they need ar15s lol.

cadman

Big Battery wrote: »

They should not have weapons that unavailable to local citizens.

AR-15 is available to local citizens. So you aren't against them having AR type rifles?

cadman

FishInFL wrote: »

It's more fear, uncertainty, and doubt that govt is trying to sell to increase their power and their access to cooler toys, which are completely unnecessary in 99.9999% of instances. Hell most cops will tell you they never even fired their gun, but now they need ar15s lol.

Do you think regular citizens should own guns?

Grady-lady

In my admittedly limited knowledge of such things, here's a thought...an AR15 wouldn't be the best choice for urban crime fighting in the streets, would it? Scary as it looks, does it even make a good sniper rifle?

NACl H2O Luvr wrote: »

Under the plan, according to MyFoxBoston.com, the city would buy 33 AR-15 rifles, at $2,500 apiece. They would go to two trained officers in all 11 districts of Boston.

$2500 seems a little pricey. :shrug

phlatsphil

Grady-lady wrote: »

In my admittedly limited knowledge of such things, here's a thought...an AR15 wouldn't be the best choice for urban crime fighting in the streets, would it? Scary as it looks, does it even make a good sniper rifle?




$2500 seems a little pricey. :shrug

In my humble opinion, yes, there are better weapons for urban crime fighting. Just ask the Army, they switched to the smaller M4.

AR15s are semi-automatic, M4s at least have the 3-round burst mode. If firepower is the intent, the fully automatic M16 would be a better choice than the AR-15, same size weapon, more firepower. There are lots of semi-automatic weapons on the market, even a semi-automatic shotgun would be a better choice than the AR-15.

And no, the AR-15 is not even a good sniper rifle, but of course that depends on the individual. I only qualified sharpshooter in the Army because I only hit one 300-yard target. But that was just me, plenty of guys qualified expert.

And yes, $2500 each seems pricey. Someone is lining a friend's pocket.

cpr

$2500 is high, bulk cost of a S$W m&P is probably in the $700 and a good red dot is $100, add a tac light and it should be under a grand.

fins4me

Police should have tools at their disposal capable of defeating body armor when confronted with it.

I do not care what platform is used to meet that need but if an AR is chosen then I have no issue with it.

Big Battery

cadman wrote: »

AR-15 is available to local citizens. So you aren't against them having AR type rifles?

Really? A post-ban AR-15 with a high cap mag is legal to purchase in Boston?

Free78

So cops want more fire power than the glock on their hips. I don't see the big deal here.

cpr

A two point "banned features" system is what defines an "assault weapon". These "assault weapons" are prohibited unless lawfully owned on or prior to September 13, 1994. Firearms that do not have two or more "banned features" are legal to purchase with an LTC-A, LTC-B or in some cases a standard FID so long as magazine restrictions are followed to what your license allows.
Illegal to possess magazines of over 10 rounds capacity unless manufactured prior to 09/13/1994, and one has a LTC-A . Does not apply to tubular magazines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts

HOME DEPOT GEORGE

Hell a lot of cops can't shoot well with their Glocks so why give them more powerfull weapons with higher mag capacity. I don't pretend that I would even be able to shoot accurately under fire the police should have more range training required so we don't see news reports like " there were 60 shots fired and the suspect was hit 4 times" those .223's are pretty powerfull and the ones that miss their target have to end up somewhere.

Free78

HOME DEPOT GEORGE wrote: »

Hell a lot of cops can't shoot well with their Glocks so why give them more powerfull weapons with higher mag capacity. I don't pretend that I would even be able to shoot accurately under fire the police should have more range training required so we don't see news reports like " there were 60 shots fired and the suspect was hit 4 times" those .223's are pretty powerfull and the ones that miss their target have to end up somewhere.

I agree. If you carry it you should be properly trained. We have all seen the stories like you mentioned, 60 rounds fired suspect hit 4 times. How do you fix that? How do you train for that? You can't train for shooting a suspect with live ammo being fired back at you. You can hit every target at the range every time you go but until a gun is being fired back at you, you don't have a clue how you will respond mentally and physically.

Cyclist

Put the money into early childhood education for disadvantaged and poor youths and drastically eliminate the need for more guns.

Free78

Cyclist wrote: »

Put the money into early childhood education for disadvantaged and poor youths and drastically eliminate the need for more guns.

How will this eliminate the need for more guns? Please explain.
Are you saying only the disadvantaged and poor are the cause of more guns?

cpr

http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/people-who-got-a-gun-for-christmas-this-year

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/guns-for-christmas-twitter-ar-15_n_2364815.html

Big Battery

Cyclist wrote: »

Put the money into early childhood education for disadvantaged and poor youths and drastically eliminate the need for more guns.

We have been doing that for decades... any other ideas?

cadman

Big Battery wrote: »

Really? A post-ban AR-15 with a high cap mag is legal to purchase in Boston?

Why does it matter if it is post ban?

It is legal in the U.S.. So you don't mind the officers in North Carolina carrying AR-15s?

Bimini Twisted

I'm against the militarization of police period. It separates them from the community and creates the perception of us Vs. them.

Big Battery

cadman wrote: »

Why does it matter if it is post ban?

It is legal in the U.S.. So you don't mind the officers in North Carolina carrying AR-15s?

This is Boston. They have laws in MA and in Boston.

Big Battery

Bimini Twisted wrote: »

I'm against the militarization of police period. It separates them from the community and creates the perception of us Vs. them.

Exactly.

cadman

Big Battery wrote: »

This is Boston. They have laws in MA and in Boston.

You don't have an issue with the police carrying AR-15s in North Carolina?

fins4me

I own several AR 15s and I do not consider myself to be militarized because of them.

Why would they do so to the police force??

Now armored cars and other items might in some cases cross the line in their overuse but not a simple rifle.

Anonymous3

Cyclist wrote: »

Put the money into early childhood education for disadvantaged and poor youths and drastically eliminate the need for more guns.

The government has for years....it's called planned parenthood. They are killing a lot of black babies, just not the ones you want, I guess.

FishInFL

cadman wrote: »

Do you think regular citizens should own guns?

I do

cadman

FishInFL wrote: »

I do

Why? The odds are they will never use them for protection. I mean, that is your argument the cops should not have them, they aren't likely to need to use them. I thought one of the main arguments most people use for concealed carry is, I would rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. But we don't think this logic should apply to the police force that is way more likely to ever need it than we do. We use the term militarize, but would argue against the term if the anti gun lobby used it as a reason to stop us from owning them.

Guns are a tool. As long as the person is trained on it's use, why object to an officer having it. I would rather he have it and not ever need it, then need it and not have it.

Big Battery

The police aren't us. Your argument fails. The 2nd amendment does not apply to the police.

jamesfreddyc

Only civilians are subjected to this kind of thing:



https://twitter.com/GeorgeRoelofsen/status/417665942592581632/photo/1

jamesfreddyc

They look like cattle.

Truly a sad sight to see.

fins4me

If the liberals have their way we will all be subjected to this sort of nonsense.

jamesfreddyc

Law enforcement can redact their personal information from public records. Civilians get their personal information put on lists that eventually are published in newspapers by sniveling, whiny, activist Progressives/Liberals.