# Mayor says no to police carrying rifles



## Archangel M (May 30, 2009)

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...jects_plan_to_arm_patrol_officers_with_m_16s/



> Facing sharp criticism, Mayor Thomas M. Menino said yesterday that he will not approve a Boston Police Department plan to arm neighborhood officers with semiautomatic rifles, although he expressed some support for their use by specialized units.
> 
> The police have obtained 200 M-16s free of charge from the US military and made plans to train dozens of officers and arm them with the rifles. A Globe story yesterday said police officials told union leaders months ago and again in recent weeks that they planned to issue the weapons to precinct patrol officers, as well as specialized units such as the bomb squad and harbor patrol.
> 
> ...


 
Talk about an "administrator" who is clueless about police tactics and developments. After the Hollywood Bank Robbery and Columbine (and recently the Mumbai attacks)...most police strategists agree that pea shooter pistols and shotguns in the hands of cops are not up to the job. Patrol officers need to be able to engage active shooters and bag guys wearing body armor RIGHT THEN...not 45 min to an hour later when SWAT arrives.

This Mayor whimped out to "community organizers" with no clue about what a "patrol rifle" is....cops have carried 12 guage shotguns in their vehicles for YEARS..this is no different.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 31, 2009)

Pea brained moron.....pure and simple.  Obviously the kind of hopolophobe idiot who believes that 'Assault Rifles' are indiscriminate death machines, spraying death and destruction across the neighborhoods.

The reality is that a patrol rifle is a precision instrument that allows FAR MORE precise shot placement in a shooting situation than a handgun or patrol shotgun, with LESS risk of over penetration and harm to the public.

I've also come to the conclusion that 'Community Organizer' is a euphemism for criminal support networker.


----------



## Carol (May 31, 2009)

Please don't anyone tell Mayor Menino that the staties based out of South Boston have been carrying patrol rifles for 2-3 years...


----------



## celtic_crippler (May 31, 2009)

I guess being under-paid isn't enough, they have to be under-armed as well.


----------



## Carol (May 31, 2009)

Underpaid is relative. The pay for the patrolmen here is among the best in the country.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not permit the use of flagmen - a police officer has to be on detail for all road construction. That alone makes for a lot of detail opportunities.  Caught a report from the Boston Globe saying 1200+ BPD officers made over $100K in the prior year.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 31, 2009)

I guess nobody's bothered to tell the reporting news agency that M16's aren't semiautomatic. Even the latest A2 and A3 variants still have a 3 round burst setting.

Don't suppose it'd make much difference.

Either way, a trunk rifle is one thing, but NOBODY gets to carry M16's in public just walking around unless I do too.

Why do the general neighborhood police need to be armed like the military? No good can come of this( You are all talking about trunk carried "patrol rifles" which is one thing, but the impression that **I** get was one of general foot patrol armed with assault rifles, which is something else again and which no good can come of )

A fine sight I'd look, were I a police officer, showing up to a stolen bike call with my M16 across my body in a Chalker 3 point tactcal sling.

You seriously can't see anything wrong with that at all?

(That and the fact a rifle is FAR easier to disarm than a sidearm. There is no functioning "retention holster" for long guns.)


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Please don't anyone tell Mayor Menino that the staties based out of South Boston have been carrying patrol rifles for 2-3 years...



I'm not a LEO so I was a bit surprised to learn that officers in my area (Phoenix) had replaced the shotguns in their trunks with semi automatic rifles a number of years back. Back in the 70's when I worked as a civi for DPS (Highway Patrol), they used shotguns out of concern for the damage a rifle bullet could cause to bystanders, even at long range. I was told that more up to date statistics show that the rifle is actually the better tool for the job. Can any of you comment on this?

Secondly, regarding the situation in Boston, it's useful to keep in mind that police-work is not just about collaring the perps. It is also about community relations. I don't know what the all the pros and cons are about carrying rifles in that community. Still, I would take a good cop's word about what works in the community over that of a politician. Nothing personal, it's just part of the job description.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 31, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I guess nobody's bothered to tell the reporting news agency that M16's aren't semiautomatic. Even the latest A2 and A3 variants still have a 3 round burst setting.
> 
> Don't suppose it'd make much difference.
> 
> ...


Just to be CLEAR, they weren't talking about beat cops carrying slung M16's.......they were talking about in patrol cars!

Second, the M16's donated by the DOD are worn out, and the fire control groups and many internal parts are changed over.  This typically involves replacing them with semi-automatic parts.  It still costs $200 - $300 but that's cheaper than all new AR-15's.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 31, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Just to be CLEAR, they weren't talking about beat cops carrying slung M16's.......they were talking about in patrol cars!
> 
> Second, the M16's donated by the DOD are worn out, and the fire control groups and many internal parts are changed over. This typically involves replacing them with semi-automatic parts. It still costs $200 - $300 but that's cheaper than all new AR-15's.


 

That's something else again and not a situation I'm as unsettled about. Thanks.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 31, 2009)

geezer said:


> I'm not a LEO so I was a bit surprised to learn that officers in my area (Phoenix) had replaced the shotguns in their trunks with semi automatic rifles a number of years back. Back in the 70's when I worked as a civi for DPS (Highway Patrol), they used shotguns out of concern for the damage a rifle bullet could cause to bystanders, even at long range. I was told that more up to date statistics show that the rifle is actually the better tool for the job. Can any of you comment on this?


 The .223 round has LESS over penetration than a 9mm from a handgun.....while still being capable of defeating body armor, where 9mm will not.

http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=26



geezer said:


> Secondly, regarding the situation in Boston, it's useful to keep in mind that police-work is not just about collaring the perps. It is also about community relations. I don't know what the all the pros and cons are about carrying rifles in that community. Still, I would take a good cop's word about what works in the community over that of a politician. Nothing personal, it's just part of the job description.



Police work is not JUST about collaring the perps, but it is primarily about enforcing the law and ensuring public safety.......cops get lots of ancillary busy work, but that's not their primary task.

The Pros to carrying a rifle is the ability to provide precision fire in the event of an active shooter situation, at greater distances than a handgun or shotgun, and with a greater degree of safety to by-standers.

The Cons are that it 'looks bad' to hopolophobes to have a rifle.......for some emotionally unstable reason.

In a practical sense there is no down side to a patrol rifle (other than additional training costs).  The only arguments against them are emotionally derived and/or based on ignorance of their role, as is indicated by the mayor.  If the mayor's opinion is based on ignorance if it's role, then the police command staff failed to do their job in selling the point.  If it's hopolophobia than he's an idiot.  They need to explain the situation in more depth.  No rational person would be opposed once they understood the issue.




The bottom line is that a handgun is a defensive weapon.  It's advantage is that it is portable.  You can carry it with you.  But the handgun is NOT the weapon of choice when you know there is going to be a fight.  If officers are responding to shots being fired, running in to that situation armed only with a handgun is handicapping the responders and endangering the public.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 31, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> That's something else again and not a situation I'm as unsettled about. Thanks.



I share your concern about full-auto........it's entirely unnecessary and likely dangerous in a patrol carbine.  Precise semi-automatic fire is what is called for in a police setting.  

Full-auto in a military setting generally serves the purpose of fire suppression.......and area fire suppression serves virtually no foreseeable purpose in civilian law enforcement.


----------



## jks9199 (May 31, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I guess nobody's bothered to tell the reporting news agency that M16's aren't semiautomatic. Even the latest A2 and A3 variants still have a 3 round burst setting.
> 
> Don't suppose it'd make much difference.
> 
> ...


Long guns serve a specific set of purposes in law enforcement -- and they're essential tools in today's streets.  I'm not suggesting that each and every officer needs a long gun, nor should it be taken out on every call -- but when it's needed, there is no substitute.  The simple fact is that we have bad guys who have various long guns, up to full auto, and we need appropriate tools to deal with them.  We no longer believe in the idea of "contain the scene and wait for the tac team" for many incidents, like active shooters.

Appropriately selected long guns, with properly trained officers are safe and necessary.  This mayor isn't listening to the people who know what they're talking about; he's listening to people who are ignorant on the subject and speaking from fear.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 31, 2009)

An excellent primer on the problem and the solution.....



> "The concept of a police patrol rifle/carbin is aggressively gaining popularity amongst police. The .223 caliber bullet fired from the patrol rifle/carbine has few limitations compared to the shotgun and it can be extremely versatile. This versatility comes with a price, as the patrol rifle/carbine is approximately 3-4 times more expensive than a shotgun. Moreover, the patrol rifle/carbine requires more initial familiarity training and sustained training. It will only take attending one police funeral to realize the additional cost and training is well worth it. The purpose of this research paper is to show that the patrol rifle/carbine is superior to the shotgun and it should become the primary patrol long gun. The evidence will show that the patrol rifle/carbine should not be in the SWAT truck waiting for deployment. Nor should it be in just one specialized vehicle within a police municipalities patrol force. The patrol rifle/carbine needs to be in the passenger compartment of all patrol vehicles. It should be in a gun locking rack that will allow officers immediate access."
> 
> http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/PoliceStaff/Weapons%20,%20Technology,%20and%20Equipment/Patrol%20Rifle--Carbine.pdf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 31, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> This mayor isn't listening to the people who know what they're talking about; he's listening to people who are ignorant on the subject and speaking from fear.


 

This is no surprise from Mumbles, believe me.


----------



## Carol (May 31, 2009)

He isn't listening, period.  I saw a clip of him on TV and the one line I caught from the speech is that he didn't like the image of officers with M-16s.  

Its all about his perception of how things look.  Even if he agreed to go ahead with the rifles, he wasn't going to give them to the patrolmen that are most likely to be the first on a scene - he was going to give them to supervisors or other specialized units.  I don't know of any other city where the mayor has this level of control over the police.   Maybe I'm wrong (I hope I am...) but it looks to me like Menino is using the death of Victoria Snelgrove as a reason to hold the BPD by the short hairs.


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2009)

The title of the article "rifle patrol" gave the impression of cops walking around with rifles..."intentionally"?? or ignorantly I dont know, but that is definitely not the case.


----------



## Carol (May 31, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The title of the article "rifle patrol" gave the impression of cops walking around with rifles..."intentionally"?? or ignorantly I dont know, but that is definitely not the case.




"I'll take Intentionally for 400 please Arch" 


Here's the headline of the initial story that kicked off the controversy (full story on link)

*Police getting more firepower* 

*200 to be armed with assault rifles


*http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._more_firepower_semiautomatic_assault_rifles/


----------



## VegasM4 (Jun 1, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Please don't anyone tell Mayor Menino that the staties based out of South Boston have been carrying patrol rifles for 2-3 years...


 
The staties DO NOT have patrol rifles.Some staties are issued shotguns though.


----------



## VegasM4 (Jun 1, 2009)

Menino is a "libtard"..a combination between a liberal and a retard.I carry a patrol rifle in the trunk of my marked unit.I carry a Bushmaster M-4 semiautomatic.I have a tcatical sling and a Surefire weapons mounted light on it.I had to go through an intense 40 hour patrol rifle course that involved firing more than 2,000 rounds of ammo.I have to qualify with my rifle 4 times a year.Our department policy like most department's involved only deploying the rifle during high risk situations like active shooters, hostage standoffs, barricaded suspects,terrorist incidents or any situation where there is a likely hood that the suspect is armed or wearing body armor.In our department being a "rifle carrier'' is optional.Only patrol officers or detectives who volunteer go to the course. We have the option of using the department issued Smith&Wesson MP15 or providing our own department approved rifles.


----------



## Kalifornian (Jun 1, 2009)

I was in an officer involved shooting with an active shooter... by myself... and I had my patrol issued AR-15. I was glad to have it and that's all I will say about that.


----------



## Carol (Jun 1, 2009)

VegasM4 said:


> The staties DO NOT have patrol rifles.Some staties are issued shotguns though.




The staties in the Commonwealth say otherwise.   Here's a quote from a member of the MSP:  

"As Killjoy said, many troopers have been patrolling within the Boston city limits for years with rifles. When was the last time any of theses community (marxists) activists seen a trooper low crawling with a rifle down Rutherford Ave taking shots at passing motorists? I've deployed mine only three times. Each time it was for an armed a-hole. One A-hole looked at the rifle and said, "I respect that". Situation was immediately over.

http://www.masscops.com/forums/426809-post33.html


----------



## VegasM4 (Jun 2, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> The staties in the Commonwealth say otherwise. Here's a quote from a member of the MSP:
> 
> "As Killjoy said, many troopers have been patrolling within the Boston city limits for years with rifles. When was the last time any of theses community (marxists) activists seen a trooper low crawling with a rifle down Rutherford Ave taking shots at passing motorists? I've deployed mine only three times. Each time it was for an armed a-hole. One A-hole looked at the rifle and said, "I respect that". Situation was immediately over.
> 
> http://www.masscops.com/forums/426809-post33.html


 
That information is false, trust me.One of my best friends is a MA State Trooper and he told me the only troopers that have rifles are those in special units like SERT,STOP,etc.Rank and file road troopers don't get AR's.


----------



## Carol (Jun 2, 2009)

VegasM4 said:


> That information is false, trust me.One of my best friends is a MA State Trooper and he told me the only troopers that have rifles are those in special units like SERT,STOP,etc.Rank and file road troopers don't get AR's.



Considering how hostile Massachusetts is towards firearms, I can see that.  I admit that I was surprised when I heard the fellow say that the South Boston barracks had rifles, considering that there are some full-time LEOs (city residents) that do not have an All Lawful Purposes Class A permit.


----------

